The MSE Forum will be undergoing some maintenance this evening. As a result, some users may experience temporary performance issues. Please use the Site Feedback board to report anything major. Thank you for your patience.

Seeing the full list of holdings?

2»

Comments

  • AnotherJoe
    AnotherJoe Posts: 19,622
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    edited 17 October 2016 at 8:27AM
    Dird wrote: »
    Everywhere I look seems to show the top 10 holdings of a particular fund (even the fund websites), is there nowhere showing all the holdings? :(

    If its not in the top ten, why does it matter? Lets say for sake of argument that Fundsmith* had a 0.73% holding in Berkshire. So what ?

    If you want to invest in Berkshire there are better ways of doing it than picking a fund that has a tiny percentage of it. If you dont want to invest in it, again, if its not in the top ten holdings, it doesn't matter as the percentage would be very low.

    * FWIW it seems very unlikely it would, Fundsmiths proposition is to hold shares in a small number of companies that meet the criteria they want. Its not a fund of funds setup, so to hold funds within it would go against its core reasoning.
  • Linton
    Linton Posts: 17,060
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Hung up my suit!
    Forumite
    Why have buffet and smith done well when other managers haven't? I suppose someone always will outperform - superior research, strategy or luck maybe?

    Some possible reasons why Fundsmith has done well....

    1) Most managers are constrained by the scope of their fund. Because of his reputation in the industry Terry Smith was able to define his own broad scope.
    2) The fund has a simple strategy and keeps to it
    3) It invests in a small number of companies and so is able to understand them in detail.
    4) Solid more defensive companies have done well since the 2008/2009 crash so the strategy has been appropriate for the economic conditions.

    Fundsmith also has an Emerging Markets IT run on similar lines which has only been going for 2 years. In the past 12 months it was 9th out of 10 EM ITs. In the previous 12 months it was 5th out of 10. So perhaps the strategy has its limitations.
  • Dird
    Dird Posts: 2,702
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    AnotherJoe wrote: »
    If its not in the top ten, why does it matter?
    I've been watching their annual meetings over the weekend. Thought it would be interesting for him to explain why it doesn't qualify as a "very good company" given how much he praises Buffett
    Mortgage (Nov 15): £79,950 | Cashback sites: £900 | Current accounts: 11
    Mortgage (May 19): £71,754 | £30k in 2016: £30,300 (101%)
  • coyrls
    coyrls Posts: 2,423
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Dird wrote: »
    I've been watching their annual meetings over the weekend. Thought it would be interesting for him to explain why it doesn't qualify as a "very good company" given how much he praises Buffett

    His
    approach rules out most businesses that do not sell direct to consumers or which make goods which are not consumed at short and regular intervals.
    (From the Fund's "Owners Manual").
  • Scarpacci
    Scarpacci Posts: 1,017 Forumite
    Dird wrote: »
    I've been watching their annual meetings over the weekend. Thought it would be interesting for him to explain why it doesn't qualify as a "very good company" given how much he praises Buffett
    If you search for Terry Smith interviews or his writing/reports, there's a few mentions of Warren Buffett but usually in the context of the investor Buffett was before, not Berkshire Hathaway today. That's not necessarily a criticism from Terry Smith - I think he's of the common view that BH has to invest that way due to its size today.

    If you take away Warren Buffett (which of course will happen some day), would Terry Smith usually own an insurance company (Geico), reinsurer (Gen Re), American railroad (BNSF), an energy company (MidAmerican)? I don't think Fundsmith would, so why own Berkshire?

    Berkshire Hathaway does also have a share portfolio, but to the extent it does overlap with Terry Smith's ideas (maybe Coca-Cola and IBM could be the type of companies they'd own - although Fundsmith holds neither), why not just do it yourself? If you wouldn't hold Wells Fargo or Phillips 66, why invest in Berkshire Hathaway to do so?

    I can't see how Fundsmith could follow its maxims and hold Berkshire Hathaway, even if Terry Smith does respect Warren Buffett's investing legacy.
    This is everybody's fault but mine.
  • AnotherJoe
    AnotherJoe Posts: 19,622
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Dird wrote: »
    I've been watching their annual meetings over the weekend. Thought it would be interesting for him to explain why it doesn't qualify as a "very good company" given how much he praises Buffett

    No one is saying it isn't "a very good company" but that isnt the only criteria. There are lots of "very good companies", FS only pick a handful, and owning one that doesn't fit their criteria in any way at all apart from being "a good company" would be a good reason to start with !

    Otherwise on your reasoning he should also buy into any other investors fund he also thinks has good management, and then he would have a fund of funds setup, which isn't what he is about.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards