Dod101 wrote:Temple Bar has been particularly badly served in the last few years with the manager's insistence on being in the UK value sector and the contrarian nature of the investments. I do not think say Henderson High Income or Lowland have done as badly, although Edinburgh was close I think.
Notwithstanding the high discount to NAV I think I will be ditching it very shortly. There is only so much that I can stand.
Not being someone who ever invests in Investment Trusts, or Unit Trusts (or such collectives), I may have got this wrong so please bear with me and explain where my thinking is wrong.
Isn't it the case that such vehicles exist such that investors can choose to invest in the manner they are mandated to follow? I mean if one wanted to invest in high yielding eastern Europe equities then a fund mandated to do such is your investment vehicle of choice, should you not be able to, or choose not to, invest directly yourself. Obviously that is an extreme example simply to make the point.
If it is a fund that its investors know is "UK value" it serves investors seeking that very niche. Now it may underperform (or outperform) others in that niche, but surely it isn't a valid criticism (with hindsight, but indeed foresight) that it stayed with such a mandate? A bigger criticism would be were it to try and reinvent itself, such as the above hypothetical example "diversifying" into Asian equities, say.
If it was simply a general fund, or a hedge fund where it didn't promise a single investment style, but instead offered great total returns due to stock picking skill alone, then of course poor performance can, and should, be criticised.