Resisting the instinct to tinker?
Discussion
Jon39 said:
Mr. Sidicks,
You seem to be mesmerized by benchmarks, and have continually suggested that I need to change my investment system.
I thought the main reason to invest, was to try achieve the best capital increase possible, together with the best possible increase in income flow.
Whether one beats a benchmark is interesting and can be a useful aid, but certainly not the most important aspect to me.
To have been able to access weekly total return indicies in 1988, you would almost have needed to be working in the City. That information is now readily available, and you criticise me for not going through 30 years of data, to recalculate all the numbers.
It would make no difference to the returns already obtained, so what would be the benefit?
With your enthusiasm for benchmark wizardry, please tell me from the following performance figures, whether the FTSE All-Share Index Total Return has beaten me over the 30 year period. I am not bothered at all, but you might enjoy telling me that a 30 year tracker fund (after fees) would have left me in the dust. Probably unlikely though, but I await your calculations with interest.
To 29th December 2017
1 year = + 8.28%
2 years = +31.41%
3 years = + 39.62%
5 years = +65.62%
10 years = +163.49%
30 years = + 4553.36%
Simple question - what were you shares over the last 12 months which yielded an 8% return?
Gentlemen - if I may suggest - you both have considerable experience and/or knowledge and are simply coming at the same subject from different starting points.
It looks to me as though,
During the past 30 years anyone who has invested with a substantial equity bias should have done well simply because markets have done well. When markets suffer a substantial fall (as in 2002 and 2008) it's easy to lose a massive 30% of your money and it all becomes a question of how able/willing you are to "hold tight and wait for the recovery". If an investor doesn't want the risk of those ups and downs a disciplined overall risk strategy can smooth the curve.
Any examination of "return" should always be made alongside a full understanding of "risk". As Bitcoin buyers are finding out!!
It looks to me as though,
- Sidicks learnt the technical ins-and-outs and knows how to apply them
- Jon has invested over a long period using some rudimentary guidelines which, as it happens, have worked out fine
During the past 30 years anyone who has invested with a substantial equity bias should have done well simply because markets have done well. When markets suffer a substantial fall (as in 2002 and 2008) it's easy to lose a massive 30% of your money and it all becomes a question of how able/willing you are to "hold tight and wait for the recovery". If an investor doesn't want the risk of those ups and downs a disciplined overall risk strategy can smooth the curve.
Any examination of "return" should always be made alongside a full understanding of "risk". As Bitcoin buyers are finding out!!
Jon is frustrating to a lot of us on here it seems.
I'm frustrated by his misleading graphs but mainly by his refusal to reveal what's in his portfolio. We know it's £1m+ and bizarrely the amount is usually the thing that most people are more modest about but not with Jon - he's mentioned it several times but adamantly won't tell us what it's in.
There is no reason for this and it leads to suspicion. I seem to remember Jon saying before that he didn't want to lure people into copying him and losing money but then says they'll all ftse100 companies anway, so we're probably all in them, in one way or another, anyway.
Ridiculous. Tell us your portfolio and you might have credibility - for me at least you are currently a broken record who keeps posting basic graphs, that look incredibly retro, and bragging about how you grew it. I believe you genuinely think that you're also be helpful but without at least some specifics it looks a little bit like you're just boasting. Sorry.
I'm frustrated by his misleading graphs but mainly by his refusal to reveal what's in his portfolio. We know it's £1m+ and bizarrely the amount is usually the thing that most people are more modest about but not with Jon - he's mentioned it several times but adamantly won't tell us what it's in.
There is no reason for this and it leads to suspicion. I seem to remember Jon saying before that he didn't want to lure people into copying him and losing money but then says they'll all ftse100 companies anway, so we're probably all in them, in one way or another, anyway.
Ridiculous. Tell us your portfolio and you might have credibility - for me at least you are currently a broken record who keeps posting basic graphs, that look incredibly retro, and bragging about how you grew it. I believe you genuinely think that you're also be helpful but without at least some specifics it looks a little bit like you're just boasting. Sorry.
Badda said:
Jon is frustrating to a lot of us on here it seems.
I'm frustrated by his misleading graphs but mainly by his refusal to reveal what's in his portfolio. We know it's £1m+ and bizarrely the amount is usually the thing that most people are more modest about but not with Jon - he's mentioned it several times but adamantly won't tell us what it's in.
There is no reason for this and it leads to suspicion. I seem to remember Jon saying before that he didn't want to lure people into copying him and losing money but then says they'll all ftse100 companies anway, so we're probably all in them, in one way or another, anyway.
Ridiculous. Tell us your portfolio and you might have credibility - for me at least you are currently a broken record who keeps posting basic graphs, that look incredibly retro, and bragging about how you grew it. I believe you genuinely think that you're also be helpful but without at least some specifics it looks a little bit like you're just boasting. Sorry.
Without anything to boast about when you dig beneath the surface!I'm frustrated by his misleading graphs but mainly by his refusal to reveal what's in his portfolio. We know it's £1m+ and bizarrely the amount is usually the thing that most people are more modest about but not with Jon - he's mentioned it several times but adamantly won't tell us what it's in.
There is no reason for this and it leads to suspicion. I seem to remember Jon saying before that he didn't want to lure people into copying him and losing money but then says they'll all ftse100 companies anway, so we're probably all in them, in one way or another, anyway.
Ridiculous. Tell us your portfolio and you might have credibility - for me at least you are currently a broken record who keeps posting basic graphs, that look incredibly retro, and bragging about how you grew it. I believe you genuinely think that you're also be helpful but without at least some specifics it looks a little bit like you're just boasting. Sorry.
Jon39 said:
Where could the Total Return index have been found in 1988?
Those were very different days, when you had to wait for the next days newspaper, to even see share prices.
It might have been in the FT, but few private individuals bought that every day.
Pre Big Bang
They were different days, but trading was easy, your broker would just call the Jobber he would give bid, offer and size, you just nod or shake your head.
Or...just for prices.there were terminals in the brokers office you could use while drinking their coffee.
Didn't we have teletext on our TVs back then?
Admittedly, not everyone had a broker back then, very few probably, but that's how it worked.
F.T. I've no idea of circulation figures, but I think it was quite a popular rag, maybe more-so than now.
Useless info
I use to get the Saturday edition on the beach before UK was even awake. It was printed in Hong Kong and flown in on the red eye.Happy days.
Edited by jeff m2 on Friday 19th January 15:50
sidicks said:
Yes, that’s why I said you need to differentiate between a platform fee and the fund management fee!
Thanks, I get the difference It amazes me even as someone who knows nothing how much variance there appears to be between fund management fees (the fund fee not the platform fee) for things that at first glance appear very similar.I've been perusing my pension funds (as I can shuffle them about a little if I want with Aviva). Not sure if this analysis is of interest here....
Also was intrigued by http://www.kroijer.com (someone posted up here a while back)
& intrigued by the unsubstantiated numbers provided by Jon39 above:
1 year = + 8.28%
2 years = +31.41%
3 years = + 39.62%
5 years = +65.62%
10 years = +163.49%
Certainly needs some backing up: the funds I have things split around have done these - numbers for 1/3/5/10 years in %:
1 3 5 10
15.6 49.2 109.6 144.5 BlackRock World ex UK Equity Index Tracker
18.1 50.0 107.2 128.4 Aviva Pension Global Equity
18.1 45.7 99.2 132.0 Pension Global Equity Fund of Funds
15.9 53.2 149.6 226.8 Pension North American
Reasonably happy with this...and does kind of back up that the global equities perform very well overall.
Obviously all of this is just observation & I am not in any way a financial advisor....I am sure others will be doing better, but I bet some are doing worse.
(apologies, I cannot easily figure out how to show the numbers better lined up, adding spaces fails!!)
Also was intrigued by http://www.kroijer.com (someone posted up here a while back)
& intrigued by the unsubstantiated numbers provided by Jon39 above:
1 year = + 8.28%
2 years = +31.41%
3 years = + 39.62%
5 years = +65.62%
10 years = +163.49%
Certainly needs some backing up: the funds I have things split around have done these - numbers for 1/3/5/10 years in %:
1 3 5 10
15.6 49.2 109.6 144.5 BlackRock World ex UK Equity Index Tracker
18.1 50.0 107.2 128.4 Aviva Pension Global Equity
18.1 45.7 99.2 132.0 Pension Global Equity Fund of Funds
15.9 53.2 149.6 226.8 Pension North American
Reasonably happy with this...and does kind of back up that the global equities perform very well overall.
Obviously all of this is just observation & I am not in any way a financial advisor....I am sure others will be doing better, but I bet some are doing worse.
(apologies, I cannot easily figure out how to show the numbers better lined up, adding spaces fails!!)
Countdown said:
Jon - those returns are very impressive but (as I'm sure you know full well) it's easy to put down unverifiable figures to state that you've beaten the professionals and the benchmarks. It's like me saying I've replaced my Veyron with a Chiron - easy to prove with some custard and a pic but if I deliberately avoid the question it does tend to create a suspicion that I don't really have either a Veyron or a Chiron or both.
Simple question - what were you shares over the last 12 months which yielded an 8% return?
Simple question - what were you shares over the last 12 months which yielded an 8% return?
Whether my comments are believable, is not something that concerns me.
The reason that I make occasional posts on this part of the forum, is simply to try to raise awareness for anyone interested, of an equity investment strategy which might not be considered by everyone. Short-term trading is exciting and possibly more popular, indeed I did it myself when starting out, but the results tend to be much less certain than long-term. In this particular topic, the OP asked for ways to help resist short-term activity, so I joined in.
It would be misleading to provide a list of 25 companies, because the top performing shares last year, are unlikely to be the top performers this year. Half (all being well less than that) will probably show a loss at the year end. It would not be helpful either, because learning to select a good business should be part of the investor process. Common sense, observation and reasoning can be useful essentials.
On a number of previous occasions, I have indicated the original business selection strategy, so you should already have a good idea about my favoured holdings. It is becoming rather boring now, but yet again if you want it, is the outline strategy.
Large FTSE 100 companies - (with size comes better hope of survival after trouble, example BP)
International trading businesses - (diversified in geographic markets, and currencies)
Non-cyclical - (helps smooth performance, because hopefully there will be a more constant demand for products or services)
Therefore, look at the FTSE 100 top 10 companies by market value, take out the cyclical miners and the telephone company, and you have seven of the core holdings. I expect you will now be saying Shell is cyclical. Indeed, but having not cut their dividend for 45 years, that aspect alone invites further consideration.
The non-cyclical part of the strategy has worked well during a number of bear markets, which I think is most important for private investors, because it has provided mental reassurance to stick to the plan, and not to sell in panic.
A note to you, Countdown, on the 2017 performance (8%). You will know that big companies place importance on their dividends, and that they can often be a significant part of an investor's return. For me last year, the dividends did form the majority part (4.51%).
Finally I will leave now, with what I consider a thought provoking quote by Mr. Warren Buffett, talking about long-term term shareholding.
"In the twentieth century, the United States suffered two world wars and other traumatic and costly military conflicts; the Depression; A dozen recessions and financial panic; Oil shocks; An epidemic of flies; And the resignation of a disgraced president. However, the Dow went from 66 to 11,497. How could anyone possibly lose? Answer, they kept dancing in and out of the market."
Jon39 said:
Whether my comments are believable, is not something that concerns me.
And yet you're so keen to boast about your 'performance'. Why?Jon39 said:
The reason that I make occasional posts on this part of the forum, is simply to try to raise awareness for anyone interested, of an equity investment strategy which might not be considered by everyone. Short-term trading is exciting and possibly more popular, indeed I did it myself when starting out, but the results tend to be much less certain than long-term. In this particular topic, the OP asked for ways to help resist short-term activity, so I joined in.
It would be misleading to provide a list of 25 companies, because the top performing shares last year, are unlikely to be the top performers this year. Half (all being well less than that) will probably show a loss at the year end. It would not be helpful either, because learning to select a good business should be part of the investor process. Common sense, observation and reasoning can be useful essentials.
On a number of previous occasions, I have indicated the original business selection strategy, so you should already have a good idea about my favoured holdings. It is becoming rather boring now, but yet again if you want it, is the outline strategy.
Large FTSE 100 companies - (with size comes better hope of survival after trouble, example BP)
International trading businesses - (diversified in geographic markets, and currencies)
Non-cyclical - (helps smooth performance, because hopefully there will be a more constant demand for products or services)
Therefore, look at the FTSE 100 top 10 companies by market value, take out the cyclical miners and the telephone company, and you have seven of the core holdings. I expect you will now be saying Shell is cyclical. Indeed, but having not cut their dividend for 45 years, that aspect alone invites further consideration.
The non-cyclical part of the strategy has worked well during a number of bear markets, which I think is most important for private investors, because it has provided mental reassurance to stick to the plan, and not to sell in panic.
All the above is saying is 'buy equities for the long-term'. Which is something I'd agree with. So what is the relevance of your own performance and all the boasting about beating the market?It would be misleading to provide a list of 25 companies, because the top performing shares last year, are unlikely to be the top performers this year. Half (all being well less than that) will probably show a loss at the year end. It would not be helpful either, because learning to select a good business should be part of the investor process. Common sense, observation and reasoning can be useful essentials.
On a number of previous occasions, I have indicated the original business selection strategy, so you should already have a good idea about my favoured holdings. It is becoming rather boring now, but yet again if you want it, is the outline strategy.
Large FTSE 100 companies - (with size comes better hope of survival after trouble, example BP)
International trading businesses - (diversified in geographic markets, and currencies)
Non-cyclical - (helps smooth performance, because hopefully there will be a more constant demand for products or services)
Therefore, look at the FTSE 100 top 10 companies by market value, take out the cyclical miners and the telephone company, and you have seven of the core holdings. I expect you will now be saying Shell is cyclical. Indeed, but having not cut their dividend for 45 years, that aspect alone invites further consideration.
The non-cyclical part of the strategy has worked well during a number of bear markets, which I think is most important for private investors, because it has provided mental reassurance to stick to the plan, and not to sell in panic.
Jon39 said:
A note to you, Countdown, on the 2017 performance (8%). You will know that big companies place importance on their dividends, and that they can often be a significant part of an investor's return. For me last year, the dividends did form the majority part (4.51%).
Indeed, so if you were going to be making a claim about outperforming the benchmark, you'd want to make sure the benchmark included these dividends for an accurate comparison to be made, otherwise the claim would be somewhat meaningless, wouldn't it?!Jon
I’m not sure what your business selection strategy is and, to be honest, other than you personally stating that you’ve achieved XXX% returns over Y years, I’ve no idea how successful or otherwise your strategy has been. It would be really helpful to see WHAT stocks you have picked so we can look at things such as P/E ratios, cash flow, earnings growth, dividend growth,
In case anybody is interested my strategy on becoming a successful international athlete is a diet of 2200Kcal of protein, 7 hours of training, 6 days a week, As a result Ive had podium finishes at the last 5 olympics in a certain event (which I cant tell you the name of because there would be no point)....
I’m not sure what your business selection strategy is and, to be honest, other than you personally stating that you’ve achieved XXX% returns over Y years, I’ve no idea how successful or otherwise your strategy has been. It would be really helpful to see WHAT stocks you have picked so we can look at things such as P/E ratios, cash flow, earnings growth, dividend growth,
In case anybody is interested my strategy on becoming a successful international athlete is a diet of 2200Kcal of protein, 7 hours of training, 6 days a week, As a result Ive had podium finishes at the last 5 olympics in a certain event (which I cant tell you the name of because there would be no point)....
Countdown said:
Jon
I’m not sure what your business selection strategy is and, to be honest, other than you personally stating that you’ve achieved XXX% returns over Y years, I’ve no idea how successful or otherwise your strategy has been. It would be really helpful to see WHAT stocks you have picked so we can look at things such as P/E ratios, cash flow, earnings growth, dividend growth,
In case anybody is interested my strategy on becoming a successful international athlete is a diet of 2200Kcal of protein, 7 hours of training, 6 days a week, As a result Ive had podium finishes at the last 5 olympics in a certain event (which I cant tell you the name of because there would be no point)....
I’m not sure what your business selection strategy is and, to be honest, other than you personally stating that you’ve achieved XXX% returns over Y years, I’ve no idea how successful or otherwise your strategy has been. It would be really helpful to see WHAT stocks you have picked so we can look at things such as P/E ratios, cash flow, earnings growth, dividend growth,
In case anybody is interested my strategy on becoming a successful international athlete is a diet of 2200Kcal of protein, 7 hours of training, 6 days a week, As a result Ive had podium finishes at the last 5 olympics in a certain event (which I cant tell you the name of because there would be no point)....
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Other than willpower and common sense has anyone struggled to sit back and do nothing with what's supposed to be a long term investment?
Part of the question comes from looking at likes of Fidelity who offer everything under the sun (almost) v. say Vanguard who only offer Vanguard products.
I could see having access to so many options being a great thing, but also a potential recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're doing?
Kid in a sweet shop anyone?
I trickle money in every month to my Fidelity account, to 6 different funds. I have 14 funds in total. Over time I have changed the geographic balance, but only really tweak this aspect through my contributions. At the outset I was very heavy in certain riskier regions which has yielded good returns, but for the last few years have been rebalancing the portfolio to more conservative regions. I probably review the mix annually & rarely make any real changes. Part of the question comes from looking at likes of Fidelity who offer everything under the sun (almost) v. say Vanguard who only offer Vanguard products.
I could see having access to so many options being a great thing, but also a potential recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're doing?
Kid in a sweet shop anyone?
GT03ROB said:
I trickle money in every month to my Fidelity account, to 6 different funds. I have 14 funds in total. Over time I have changed the geographic balance, but only really tweak this aspect through my contributions. At the outset I was very heavy in certain riskier regions which has yielded good returns, but for the last few years have been rebalancing the portfolio to more conservative regions. I probably review the mix annually & rarely make any real changes.
Yes that's a bit more what I had in mind when posting vs. traditional "company stocks" where I could easily see myself panicking.It's always going to be willpower/common sense - just curious who does and doesn't have it
Countdown said:
Jon
I’m not sure what your business selection strategy is and, to be honest, other than you personally stating that you’ve achieved XXX% returns over Y years, I’ve no idea how successful or otherwise your strategy has been. It would be really helpful to see WHAT stocks you have picked so we can look at things such as P/E ratios, cash flow, earnings growth, dividend growth
This is what I find interesting.I’m not sure what your business selection strategy is and, to be honest, other than you personally stating that you’ve achieved XXX% returns over Y years, I’ve no idea how successful or otherwise your strategy has been. It would be really helpful to see WHAT stocks you have picked so we can look at things such as P/E ratios, cash flow, earnings growth, dividend growth
I'm still deciding which funds and provider to go with.
To do this I've been messing around on a couple of online portfolio trackers that let you simulate a portfolio and to choose the date you purchased so you get a historical "replay" of performance.
With one model portfolio I'd be up 20% if I'd put money in a year back, it's great, I'm clearly a genius!
But I'm sure if I posted them up on here and was asked to explain my reasoning I'd be torn a new one
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: This is what I find interesting.
I'm still deciding which funds and provider to go with.
To do this I've been messing around on a couple of online portfolio trackers that let you simulate a portfolio and to choose the date you purchased so you get a historical "replay" of performance.
With one model portfolio I'd be up 20% if I'd put money in a year back, it's great, I'm clearly a genius!
But I'm sure if I posted them up on here and was asked to explain my reasoning I'd be torn a new one
It's also different when it's real money - most people are much more risk averse!I'm still deciding which funds and provider to go with.
To do this I've been messing around on a couple of online portfolio trackers that let you simulate a portfolio and to choose the date you purchased so you get a historical "replay" of performance.
With one model portfolio I'd be up 20% if I'd put money in a year back, it's great, I'm clearly a genius!
But I'm sure if I posted them up on here and was asked to explain my reasoning I'd be torn a new one
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: This is what I find interesting.
I'm still deciding which funds and provider to go with.
To do this I've been messing around on a couple of online portfolio trackers that let you simulate a portfolio and to choose the date you purchased so you get a historical "replay" of performance.
With one model portfolio I'd be up 20% if I'd put money in a year back, it's great, I'm clearly a genius!
But I'm sure if I posted them up on here and was asked to explain my reasoning I'd be torn a new one
With an exposure to some of the riskier foreign markets 20% over the last year wouldn't be far off as that's pretty much where I got to. With a couple of exceptions my funds are with Fidelity, Blackrock & IP.... the spread is as follows:I'm still deciding which funds and provider to go with.
To do this I've been messing around on a couple of online portfolio trackers that let you simulate a portfolio and to choose the date you purchased so you get a historical "replay" of performance.
With one model portfolio I'd be up 20% if I'd put money in a year back, it's great, I'm clearly a genius!
But I'm sure if I posted them up on here and was asked to explain my reasoning I'd be torn a new one
Pure UK funds 8%
UK small cos 3%
US tracker 8%
UK special sits 20%
Global special sits 16%
Europe funds 8%
Emerging Mkts 2%
Biotech fund 5%
India fund 11%
China fund 8%
Japan small cos 11%
I'm sure some would describe that as a bonkers split, but its a function also of where the growth has come from.
GT03ROB said:
With an exposure to some of the riskier foreign markets 20% over the last year wouldn't be far off as that's pretty much where I got to. With a couple of exceptions my funds are with Fidelity, Blackrock & IP.... the spread is as follows:
Pure UK funds 8%
UK small cos 3%
US tracker 8%
UK special sits 20%
Global special sits 16%
Europe funds 8%
Emerging Mkts 2%
Biotech fund 5%
India fund 11%
China fund 8%
Japan small cos 11%
I'm sure some would describe that as a bonkers split, but its a function also of where the growth has come from.
Higher risk, but good diversity. Not that dissimilar to mine.Pure UK funds 8%
UK small cos 3%
US tracker 8%
UK special sits 20%
Global special sits 16%
Europe funds 8%
Emerging Mkts 2%
Biotech fund 5%
India fund 11%
China fund 8%
Japan small cos 11%
I'm sure some would describe that as a bonkers split, but its a function also of where the growth has come from.
Too many people try and overthink things and try and be too precise with the allocation.
This is what I put in a "test portfolio":
Scottish Mortgage IT PLC
Lindsell Train Global Equity A GBP
Fundsmith Equity I Acc
Baillie Gifford Managed A Acc
Vanguard LifeStrategy 60%Equi A Acc
I tested with 20% in each to keep it simple.
Admittedly there's no logic behind it other than seeing some feedback on here and looking online and tinkering with the LifeStrategy equity/bond percentage, but of course that's one component of a one fifth constituent.
Feedback/ridicule welcome
Scottish Mortgage IT PLC
Lindsell Train Global Equity A GBP
Fundsmith Equity I Acc
Baillie Gifford Managed A Acc
Vanguard LifeStrategy 60%Equi A Acc
I tested with 20% in each to keep it simple.
Admittedly there's no logic behind it other than seeing some feedback on here and looking online and tinkering with the LifeStrategy equity/bond percentage, but of course that's one component of a one fifth constituent.
Feedback/ridicule welcome
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: This is what I put in a "test portfolio":
Scottish Mortgage IT PLC
Lindsell Train Global Equity A GBP
Fundsmith Equity I Acc
Baillie Gifford Managed A Acc
Vanguard LifeStrategy 60%Equi A Acc
I tested with 20% in each to keep it simple.
Admittedly there's no logic behind it other than seeing some feedback on here and looking online and tinkering with the LifeStrategy equity/bond percentage, but of course that's one component of a one fifth constituent.
Feedback/ridicule welcome
I don't know those funds, but they seem from the descriptions very similar. If you input those funds into an application such as Morningstar or similar run a check on stock overlap. You may well find that you do not have the diversity you think you have. You could find the same underlying stock in each fund. Also have the same application analysis the overall diversity in terms of sector & geographical spread. You may get a few surprises. By way of example if you look at my split above it doesn't look it but the overall exposure to the US market is around 25%, rather than the 8% shown against specifc US funds.Scottish Mortgage IT PLC
Lindsell Train Global Equity A GBP
Fundsmith Equity I Acc
Baillie Gifford Managed A Acc
Vanguard LifeStrategy 60%Equi A Acc
I tested with 20% in each to keep it simple.
Admittedly there's no logic behind it other than seeing some feedback on here and looking online and tinkering with the LifeStrategy equity/bond percentage, but of course that's one component of a one fifth constituent.
Feedback/ridicule welcome
None of this would make it wrong but you should at least understand what you are buying & be satisfied that aligns with you own thoughts,
GT03ROB said:
I don't know those funds, but they seem from the descriptions very similar. If you input those funds into an application such as Morningstar or similar run a check on stock overlap. You may well find that you do not have the diversity you think you have. You could find the same underlying stock in each fund. Also have the same application analysis the overall diversity in terms of sector & geographical spread. You may get a few surprises. By way of example if you look at my split above it doesn't look it but the overall exposure to the US market is around 25%, rather than the 8% shown against specifc US funds.
None of this would make it wrong but you should at least understand what you are buying & be satisfied that aligns with you own thoughts,
I think you have to pay for the overlap check, least with MorningStar.None of this would make it wrong but you should at least understand what you are buying & be satisfied that aligns with you own thoughts,
To be fair that is me playing as it comes down to the comment earlier that it's different when it's real money and it's your own.
Right now I have something more cautious in mind
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff