Worldwide Healthcare Trust plc (WWH)

[UncleEbenezer]

If you look at its sector (biotech and healthcare), you'll find its performance is pretty-much in line with its peers.

[wydffa]

Let's hope the sudden departure before Christmas, after accusations of sexual harassment, of long-time manager Samuel D. Isaly does not have an adverse effect (also for Biotech Growth (BIOG) which I also hold).

[richfool]

I had been ignorant of this IT's existence until relatively recently. The performance is remarkable. I have been looking for a dip to buy in, but the darn thing just keeps heading north.

This IT has popped up on my radar and as part of my research I came across your post above. Did you come to any conclusions or purchase a holding? I am quite interested in adding it for its growth prospects as well as diversification.

[everhopeful]

I am up 450% on this trust and it is now one of my biggest holdings. I would not contemplate selling any of it at the moment.

[ermintrade]

I am also a long term holder of WWH. I believe that worldwide health provision is on an upward long term trend. Some of the factors are: increasingly wealthy middle classes in many emerging markets eg China, India; huge potential in new biotech treatments; more people with problems of obesity, diabetes, cancer etc.
So if you are are potentially a long term investor (longer than 10 years), don't wait but buy WWH now. The more biotech focussed ITs such as BIOG and IBT are likely to be more volatile, but still good long term bets.
Regards
ermintrade

[gbjbaanb]

You need to consider the price in relation to it's nav. Right now it seems to be roughly equal, but even when it drops it's only 1% discount anyway.

The biggest problem for me with this is the management fee of 1.38% which is a bit steep for effectively holding a bunch of healthcare stocks.

I have owned these in the party, but also l&g heathcare fund. There are others, have a browse around some alternatives.

[grimer]

I bought in about 18 months ago and topped up a couple of times. It is up a 'mere' 7.26% vs seven other ITs, purchased at the same time, which were up at least 15%.

SMT = 31%
HSL = 26%
BGFD = 19%
HRI = 19%
TRY = 19%
TRG = 22%
BWRM = 15%

Unless you're buying for the sector, there may be better options.

[77ss]

I bought in about 18 months ago and topped up a couple of times. It is up a 'mere' 7.26% vs seven other ITs, purchased at the same time, which were up at least 15%.

SMT = 31%
HSL = 26%
BGFD = 19%
HRI = 19%
TRY = 19%
TRG = 22%
BWRM = 15%

Unless you're buying for the sector, there may be better options.

Over a 10 year time span WWH is the hands down winner, comfortably beating all the above (I assume you meant BRWM rather than BWRM?). No guarantees for the future of course.

Wait for a lower price, as some seem to wish to do, and you may wait a long time.

[CryptoPlankton]

The biggest problem for me with this is the management fee of 1.38% which is a bit steep for effectively holding a bunch of healthcare stocks.

The only way I can see how that could be interpreted as a big problem is if it had deterred someone from benefitting from the quadrupling of the share price over the past few years!

[richfool]

Well I have taken a small starting position in WWH., - if only to make it easier to monitor the price, with a view to adding more if it falls back, and without having altogether missed the boat if it carries on up.

I mainly wanted exposure to the sector (pharma, bio and healthcare) and its growth prospects. It's dividend yield is only 0.88%. though I noted the second interim dividend (the larger one), goes "ex-dividend" around the 15th June.

I note that F&C Managed portfolio trust [growth portfolio] (FMPG) holds (WWH) Worldwide Healthcare along with Syncona (SYN) in its top ten holdings.

The biggest problem for me with this is the management fee of 1.38% which is a bit steep for effectively holding a bunch of healthcare stocks.

gbjb, according to its KID:-

"transaction costs" are: 0.2%
"other ongoing costs" - 1.0%
"performance fee" - 0.50%

So 1.70% overall, would seem reasonable for a trust which has significant investments overseas and in a specialist sector.

[gbjbaanb]

I had some - sold relatively recently, because I had too much health exposure, my L&G Health & Pharma maintained enough of a position in the sector with a few stocks.

It did very well, but my point was to compare it to others and the sector, so what if it quadruples, if every other fund in the sector quadruples too! then the management fee looks more important, particularly when the L&G one is down 1.4% so far this year, and WWH is down 2.8%. I don't think high management fees are a good thing (L&G 0.3%)

[CryptoPlankton]

I had some - sold relatively recently, because I had too much health exposure, my L&G Health & Pharma maintained enough of a position in the sector with a few stocks.

It did very well, but my point was to compare it to others and the sector, so what if it quadruples, if every other fund in the sector quadruples too! then the management fee looks more important, particularly when the L&G one is down 1.4% so far this year, and WWH is down 2.8%. I don't think high management fees are a good thing (L&G 0.3%)

I'm not suggesting that high management fees are a good thing, just that I really don't see them as being a significant factor when choosing an investment. You have more or less made my point for me by your comment "so what if it quadruples, if every other fund in the sector quadruples too". Precisely: in such a case, you would have had a net four-bagger whatever the underlying charges.

If we are comparing WWH (with its 1.38% management fee) and the L&G fund (with its 0.3%), I think we should look at performance over a much longer period than the few months of your YTD figures - which is basically noise in LTBH investment terms. WWH has a ten year annualised return of 19.88% (5yr = 18.17%) and L&G has 10yr = 13.39% (5yr = 11.69%)*. So my slightly tongue in cheek comment earlier was also meant partly seriously in that if someone treats management fees as the most important factor ("biggest problem") when assessing a fund, rather than prioritising such things as the holdings and historical premium/discount (WWH has been available at a discount of over 8% at times in the past few years**) then they may be missing out on potentially very good investments as a result.

I'm really not trying to score points here, I'm just genuinely mystified by the weight some people give to management fees and would love someone to convince me that I should take more notice. I hold several ITs (for different purposes) and the fees have never featured in my selection or (very rarely executed) deselection criteria.

*Figures from Morningstar.
**From markets.ft.com

[richfool]

If one is looking at costs/management fees, I think it important to compare like with like, - i.e. to compare WWH's charges against the other trusts within that particular sector. From my quick perusal of the other trusts, WWH appears to have one of the lowest TER's, if not the lowest, in that sector.

[CryptoPlankton]

If one is looking at costs/management fees, I think it important to compare like with like, - i.e. to compare WWH's charges against the other trusts within that particular sector. From my quick perusal of the other trusts, WWH appears to have one of the lowest TER's, if not the lowest, in that sector.

That certainly makes sense, but where should fees rank in importance relative to other factors (size, age, holdings, performance, yield, premium/discount to NAV, volatility etc) when deciding whether to invest in an IT? If I was presented with evidence that they have a significant impact (other than some notional effect on the return) I would gladly start giving them some consideration.

[richfool]

If one is looking at costs/management fees, I think it important to compare like with like, - i.e. to compare WWH's charges against the other trusts within that particular sector. From my quick perusal of the other trusts, WWH appears to have one of the lowest TER's, if not the lowest, in that sector.

That certainly makes sense, but where should fees rank in importance relative to other factors (size, age, holdings, performance, yield, premium/discount to NAV, volatility etc) when deciding whether to invest in an IT? If I was presented with evidence that they have a significant impact (other than some notional effect on the return) I would gladly start giving them some consideration.

CP, Well yes, I would also be looking at things like performance, discount/premium, dividend yield, what direction the SP appeared to be going, etc, as well as charges.

[77ss]

...I'm just genuinely mystified by the weight some people give to management fees and would love someone to convince me that I should take more notice. I hold several ITs (for different purposes) and the fees have never featured in my selection or (very rarely executed) deselection criteria....

My attitude entirely. Obsession with costs baffles me. Perhaps its just because costs are one of the few 'knowables' around which tempts people to focus on them - but they are often trivial compared with the 'unknowables' - future performance!

I don't care if somebody else makes money out of me - as long as I get a good result.

'The labourer is worthy of his hire'.

I was relatively late into WWH. Bought in December 2012 at 847p, to complement my HYP holdings of AZN and GSK. With the current share price at 2568p, I'm well content.

[CryptoPlankton]

That certainly makes sense, but where should fees rank in importance relative to other factors (size, age, holdings, performance, yield, premium/discount to NAV, volatility etc) when deciding whether to invest in an IT? If I was presented with evidence that they have a significant impact (other than some notional effect on the return) I would gladly start giving them some consideration.

CP, Well yes, I would also be looking at things like performance, discount/premium, dividend yield, what direction the SP appeared to be going, etc, as well as charges.

Hi richfool. Of course, but how much weight do you give to the charges and why? I can't grasp how they can be relevant if you think an IT offers the prospect of meeting your objectives based on these other factors. Isn't it better to pay a nominal 2% for a net 10% return than 1% for a 5% return? I think I'll just have to accept that I don't understand!

[StOmer]

Charges for me come way down the list of reasons why I would buy or not. WWH, we sold out during the US elections, both candidates had the sector in their sights and we had made a handsome profit from WWH, BIOG and IBT.

[gbjbaanb]

...I'm just genuinely mystified by the weight some people give to management fees and would love someone to convince me that I should take more notice. I hold several ITs (for different purposes) and the fees have never featured in my selection or (very rarely executed) deselection criteria....

My attitude entirely. Obsession with costs baffles me. Perhaps its just because costs are one of the few 'knowables' around which tempts people to focus on them - but they are often trivial compared with the 'unknowables' - future performance!

That's why we have had so much discussion over trackers and the "Wise" since well before the board existed.

[richfool]

Hi richfool. Of course, but how much weight do you give to the charges and why? I can't grasp how they can be relevant if you think an IT offers the prospect of meeting your objectives based on these other factors. Isn't it better to pay a nominal 2% for a net 10% return than 1% for a 5% return? I think I'll just have to accept that I don't understand!

CP, I think we are agreeing here. I am not saying that the charges are that significant. Noting that performance is net of charges. Performance is surely what matters.

I wouldn't be doing anything as detailed as putting a precise "weighting" on each factor, but certainly as St0mer says I wouldn't put charges at or near the top of any such list or consideration. I would be more concerned about performance, past and most particularly anticipated future performance. I would also look at the coverage of the trust, - it's holdings and weightings, and its dividend yield if that was important to me. Charges would be of less (much less) significance and whatever view I took on them may also depend on what the charges of other competing alternative investments there might be.

In the case of WWH, I liked its past performance and the fact it gave me exposure to pharma, bio and healthcare, all in the one holding, thus the costs, which I viewed as normal/reasonable, were a minor consideration.