PF consolidation and improvement

[EssDeeAitch]

I have I think got into a bit of a mess with investments in the Global sector (and I don't want to examine why in this particular post). There are just too many funds (I use funds and trusts as a generic) and I think that it can be a bit of an expensive tracker. So I am thinking of selling some and increasing my holdings in the Far East and Property which are quite underweight and the increasing the value held in Lindsell Train and Fundsmith. The current pf looks like this (this is not the sole pf, there is an income pf as well).



This will result in approximately 25% each in SMT, EWI, FS and LT and leave funds available to increase my exposure to Far East, Property and into the income portfolio.

I would crystallise a 7% loss on the funds sold but I feel that the chances of growth in the remaining funds is far greater due to their style and methodology.
Interested to see comments regarding the number of funds in this sector and the logic behind selling.
Regards
SDH

[RocketMan]

You can roll forward your loss to offset any capital gains you lock in, might be useful if you are planning any big profits.

I personally like the lifestrategy 100% by Vanguard however I started using genuine impact (found out about them on Monzo of all places) and ended up swapping it for Lindsell train global equity. It had a better track record with the returns.

Generally I found a lot of funds I was buying was based on the fee and the idea of tracking the market, I've moved more money in more expensive active products which have been giving me much better returns.

e.g. Japanese small gap growth fund costs me 2% in fees and I love it, I haven't found a good comparison since.

The bulk of my investments my in active funds and then I like to add my own flavour with stocks but you have the reverse approach so take my view with a pinch of salt.

[Avantegarde]

I would leave at least one tracker in the portfolio. Why? Because it is incredibly useful and educative to see if your "active" funds or ITs can actually do any better. When I set up my portfolio of ITs about 6 years ago I had about 13 to start with, which grew at one point to 15 or 16. Then, last year, I scaled them back to about 10 because I realised that several (mainly the UK focused ones) had failed, sometimes miserably, to give a better total return than a bog standard FTSE All-Share or World index tracker. I regard that as an important lesson learned.

[EssDeeAitch]

I would leave at least one tracker in the portfolio. Why? Because it is incredibly useful and educative to see if your "active" funds or ITs can actually do any better. When I set up my portfolio of ITs about 6 years ago I had about 13 to start with, which grew at one point to 15 or 16. Then, last year, I scaled them back to about 10 because I realised that several (mainly the UK focused ones) had failed, sometimes miserably, to give a better total return than a bog standard FTSE All-Share or World index tracker. I regard that as an important lesson learned.

Leaving one tracker is a good idea, thanks. The stock style and stock sectors are almost identical for the two that I have, the only difference being Lifestrategy has more exposure to Europe than USA so I can weigh that in with the rest of the pf.

[tjh290633]

I would leave at least one tracker in the portfolio. Why? Because it is incredibly useful and educative to see if your "active" funds or ITs can actually do any better. When I set up my portfolio of ITs about 6 years ago I had about 13 to start with, which grew at one point to 15 or 16. Then, last year, I scaled them back to about 10 because I realised that several (mainly the UK focused ones) had failed, sometimes miserably, to give a better total return than a bog standard FTSE All-Share or World index tracker. I regard that as an important lesson learned.

Leaving one tracker is a good idea, thanks. The stock style and stock sectors are almost identical for the two that I have, the only difference being Lifestrategy has more exposure to Europe than USA so I can weigh that in with the rest of the pf.

Why not just keep a record of the index/indices that you wish to track? Are your trackers income or accumulation units? Make sure that you are comparing like with like.

TJH

[EssDeeAitch]

I would leave at least one tracker in the portfolio. Why? Because it is incredibly useful and educative to see if your "active" funds or ITs can actually do any better. When I set up my portfolio of ITs about 6 years ago I had about 13 to start with, which grew at one point to 15 or 16. Then, last year, I scaled them back to about 10 because I realised that several (mainly the UK focused ones) had failed, sometimes miserably, to give a better total return than a bog standard FTSE All-Share or World index tracker. I regard that as an important lesson learned.

Leaving one tracker is a good idea, thanks. The stock style and stock sectors are almost identical for the two that I have, the only difference being Lifestrategy has more exposure to Europe than USA so I can weigh that in with the rest of the pf.

Why not just keep a record of the index/indices that you wish to track? Are your trackers income or accumulation units? Make sure that you are comparing like with like.

TJH

Yes I could do that indeed. I guess that I am a bit stuck in a morass of indecision. Do nothing, except that I think that there are simply too many investments in this Global pf; go fully active which increases chances of gain and risk of loss or maintain some trackers which reduces chance of gain and loss. The joys of a new self investor!

[thegreatzulu]

If you are thinking about active management and focus on the end of the day returns, I heavily lean towards investment trusts.

More expensive than your typical actively managed fund but for me personally they have always performed well no matter what the market fancies doing that week.

For my UK exposure I use Greencoat UK Wind, I was in Finsbury Growth and Income before (figured I'd do my bit for the environment)

If you want a cheaper global focused fund and you like the tech space have a look at the First Trust Cloud Computing ETF.

[BusyBumbleBee]

... I heavily lean towards investment trusts ... More expensive than your typical actively managed fund ...For my UK exposure I use Greencoat UK Wind, ... (figured I'd do my bit for the environment)

How wise you are, TheGreatZulu : investment trusts can always be sold (or bought) there and then without the wait for the price to be worked out (unit trusts etc) and the money is available for immediate investment. Furthermore they are bought at a discount (usually) to the underlying worth of the securities held. (the notable exceptions here being the Green Infrastructure funds such as UKW(greencoat), TRIG, BSIF, JLEN and NESF which trade at a premium to NAV). I would never buy a unit trust or similar but here is not the place for that discussion but I do not agree with you on them being more expensive - and I am not at all sure that they are not 'actively managed' - but have to read the reports to find that out

By the way - not convinced that holding UKW does much for the environment - UKW just buys assets which others have built. You would have to look at something like AAVC to see how they build from scratch.

regards - BBB

[Hariseldon58]

I'd agree with BusyBumbleBee that investment trusts are generally not more expensive than the average actively managed fund.

The effect of gearing and hopefully buying on a discount tend to lead towards lower costs overall, in the fullness of time.
The 'green' trusts are trading at a premium because it's on trend and there tends to be an element of scarcity, the high income, often with some inflation linking is clearly attractive in the present environment.