How does this investment rate?

Lokolo

3.7% is just the simple return.

Because you invested monthly it means the real return is a lot higher than this.

For example, my £100 a month, has a simple return of 8.11%, but money weighted return this results in 16.98% return.

Its the same thing with the whole 5% regular saver. You are getting 5% money weighted, but simple you are getting 2.7%.

cloud_dog

Geriatric wrote: »

A 20 year savings plan in equities giving a net return of 3.7% does not seem much of an investment to me.

Geriatric, is this investment one of many and what percentage of your portfolio is in this trust???

Turbobob wrote:

If you'd sold it when the share price was higher (it was between 1.30 and 1.50 for most of 2007 for example) then you'd have made more profit.

Great strategy, must try to remember that...... Sell high, interesting. :rotfl: (No disrespect meant, it just made me laugh)

turbobob

Hehe, it sounds deceptively simple but I was trying to make a serious point These major falls e.g. this trust in 2001-2002 or 2008 didn't happen overnight. They were in long term downtrends which were could be seen with a long term trend following indicator such as a 200 day moving average (I prefer EMA's). Is it logical to hold a share which is falling in value over a long term? Even for a long term investor, I think being aware of such things is helpful.

Geriatric

Lokolo wrote: »

3.7% is just the simple return.

Because you invested monthly it means the real return is a lot higher than this.

For example, my £100 a month, has a simple return of 8.11%, but money weighted return this results in 16.98% return.

Its the same thing with the whole 5% regular saver. You are getting 5% money weighted, but simple you are getting 2.7%.

Sorry I do not understand what you are saying. The calculations are at 3.7% compounded mothly and represent the theoretical return based on the difference between the present value of the shares and the actual moneys paid.

Geriatric

cloud_dog wrote: »

Geriatric, is this investment one of many and what percentage of your portfolio is in this trust???

It is probably less than 5% and having done 20 years I thought to terminate the savings scheme and put into trust for 2 grandchildren.
Could switch to other F&C Investment trust without charges.
The British Assets Trust appears to have been a lemon,

Geriatric

jon3001 wrote: »

I'd be disappointed too. Did you learn anything from this? What will you do next with the money?

Looking briefly at the trust it seems to be dominated by FTSE-100 stocks. Personally I don't think that's particularly diversified if these funds represent your entire portfolio. There are a great many other places to spread your money and seek growth outside of UK large-caps.

If you intend to continue investing then you have a useful sum with which to take stock and devise a new plan.

As said below I am going to put it into trust for two 5/6year old grandchildren. Being in the departure zone of life I have been disinvesting for many years and already taken care of three other granddhildren who are of majority.
The one thing I have learnt is that longstanding Scottish trusts are as well run as longstanding Scottish Banks!

dunstonh

The British Assets Trust appears to have been a lemon,

Modern investments are flexible and allow you to have a diversified portfolio and ability to switch investments easily. The investment you have is old and you have all your eggs in one basket. The FTSE100 (large caps) has been an awful index to track since Labour got into power and thats the general make up of your fund. As you had all your eggs in that one basket you get the performance that more or less matches that. Had it been the best index then you would be happy. That is one of the risks you take with single fund investing.

Rollinghome

dunstonh wrote: »

The investment you have is old and you have all your eggs in one basket. The FTSE100 (large caps) has been an awful index to track since Labour got into power and thats the general make up of your fund. As you had all your eggs in that one basket you get the performance that more or less matches that. Had it been the best index then you would be happy. That is one of the risks you take with single fund investing.

What exactly does the age of a company have to do with it and where does the idea that it tracks the FTSE100 come from?

I don't know much about British Assets but just a very quick glance at their report shows it's in the Global Growth and Income sector. The objective is a weighting of 75 per cent FTSE All-Share Index and 25 per cent FTSE World (ex UK) Index investing in equities and equity-related securities.

It certainly doesn't track the FTSE100. Assets are shown as 59% UK equities, America 13.4%, Europe 8.1%, Pacific 6.1%, Japan 4.1%, Corporate bonds 7.0%.

As far as I can see the price is up 40.7% over the last 5 years against the sector average of 32.3%. The poster seems to say he has just 5% of assets in this company.

dunstonh

What exactly does the age of a company have to do with it

Dont know. You tell me? I was making reference to the time the investment was taken out and the lack of choice you would have had then compared with now.

where does the idea that it tracks the FTSE100 come from?

Don't know. You tell me

I don't know much about British Assets but just a very quick glance at their report shows it's in the Global Growth and Income sector. The objective is a weighting of 75 per cent FTSE All-Share Index and 25 per cent FTSE World (ex UK) Index investing in equities and equity-related securities.

Higher up the thread, it was mentioned by someone else that it was "dominated by FTSE 100 stocks". I dont know much about that investment either and accepted what they said about it. If its dominated by FTSE100 large caps then you are going to get performance somewhere in line with that. If large caps had done well for most of that period then it would have done better.

The poster seems to say he has just 5% of assets in this company.

That may be the case now but was it when he started? (plus his post on the 5% hadnt been made when I made mine).

Rollinghome

I'm sure that they explained to you on your IFA training course that many UK funds, including so-called global funds, will have large holdings of FTSE100 companies: given their size that's inevitable in any balanced portfolio. That's very different to "tracking" the the FTSE100 as you then described it.

British Assets is a very big, well-know Investment Trust with assets not far short of half a billion: shouldn't IFAs know at least something about it without relying on what they read on message boards?

Deciding the merit of an investment based on the time it has been held seems a slightly whacky approach in this age of computers. IFAs found guilty of "churning" to maximise commission get their hands slapped don't they?

(Perhaps worth pointing out that the performance of the all-share index is also very much determined by the large caps which is why the two indexes so closely follow each other. The 100 companies comprising the FTSE 100 account for 82% of the total London stock market.)