Comparing Ballie Gifford Alpha (OEIC) to Monks (IT)

Options
I currently hold Ballie Gifford Global Alpha Growth (OEIC) and am thinking of selling it and buying Monks (close end IT). Am I thinking this through correctly?

The funds have the same managers; the Alpha team took over Monks in early 2015 following which it moved from a discount of c.12% to a current premium of 3%. Most holdings are the same (though not to the same %'s) but Monks also holds some smaller, less liquid companies. Monks is lightly geared at 102%.

In terms of performance, Alpha has risen approx. 29% over the last year and 60% over the last two years. Monks price (not NAV) has risen 48% in the last year and 90% in the last two years. The discount/premium shrank gradually over those two years, so Monks outperformed Alpha by about 11.5% during the last year (48-29-(15/2) and about 15% over two years (90-60-15). Alpha’s FE is currently 114, Monks’ is 120.

The upsides of Monks look attractive so I need to make sure I understand the downsides, especially if there is a general fall in stock markets. Are these:
1) Gearing exacerbates losses in a falling market
2) The smaller/less liquid companies may underperform in a falling market and drag Monks down compared to a more robust Alpha
3) The premium might turn into a discount so if I wanted to sell that would reduce the value of my holding.

Thanks.

Comments

  • dividendhero
    Options
    Monks certianly has a good record of capital growth and good geographic diversity, but yield is too minuscule for my liking
  • aroominyork
    aroominyork Posts: 2,827 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Thanks, dividendhero, though given your user name I wouldn't expect a fund called 'Alpha Growth' or its IT equivalent to suit you.

    It really is the additional risk of Monks over Alpha Growth that I am trying to fully understand.
  • Reaper
    Reaper Posts: 7,283 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Photogenic
    Options
    I don't think you should compare Monk's share price, use the NAV instead. Monks underperformed for a long time, leading to a high discount. The discount disappearing has flattered the growth figure but is a one off, so there is no point chasing it now.

    The NAV has grown 24.9% over the last year, whereas you say Alpha has grown 29% (I'll take your word for it, I haven't checked).

    So switch if the Investment Trust setup appeals to you, but not to chase past performance gains. Particularly as historically past performance is a poor guide to the future.

    BTW I invested in Monks for my son. I was on the point of giving up on them until they switched managers, so I am relieved they have improved.
  • aroominyork
    Options
    Thanks Reaper for pointing out the bleedin' obvious, that I should look at Monks' NAV rather than adjusting the price to take account of the eroding discount. So as of today I make it 2015/16 + 2016/17 growth of Monks 26.80% + 30.17% = 65.51% compounded, and Alpha 25.32% + 27.69% = 60.02% compounded. So I had radically miscalculated and the difference is 5.5% over two years, not 15%.
  • Reaper
    Reaper Posts: 7,283 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Photogenic
    Options
    Happy to have helped. Our figures differ marginally, probably just because of slightly different dates. Mine came from the most recently issued factsheet and cover the year ending 30/9/2017
  • aroominyork
    aroominyork Posts: 2,827 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    ... and mine from HL's website so accurate as of yesterday.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards