How does this investment rate?

jon3001

dunstonh wrote: »

Higher up the thread, it was mentioned by someone else that it was "dominated by FTSE 100 stocks".

I'll be more specific so people can make their own interpretation. The latest annual report lists the top 50 holdings and what % they represent of the total investments. FTSE-100 companies represent 52.4% of the total investments from the data available.

There may be well more FTSE-100 companies in the holdings that didn't make the top 50; so the 52.4% could be a little higher.

#, Stock, %total investments (FTSE-100 stocks in bold)

• 1 BP 5.6
• 2 Vodafone Group 4.1
• 3 GlaxoSmithKline 3.9
• 4 HSBC Holdings 3.6
• 5 Royal Dutch Shell 3.3
• 6 AstraZeneca 2.9
• 7 Royal Bank of Scotland Group 2.5
• 8 Centrica 2.4
• 9 Imperial Tobacco Group 2.2
• 10 BG Group 2
• 11 Standard Life European Private Investment Company Equity Trust 2
• 12 Cable & Wireless Telecommunications 1.7
• 13 Scottish & Southern Energy Electricity 1.7
• 14 Pearson Media 1.7
• 15 Anglo American Mining 1.7
• 16 BAE Systems Aerospace & Defence 1.7
• 17 Unilever Food Producers & Processors 1.7
• 18 Carillion Construction & Materials 1.3
• 19 Rio Tinto Mining 1.3
• 20 Prudential Life Assurance 1.1
• 21 Tui Travel Travel & Leisure 1.1
• 22 Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical & Biotech 1
• 23 Exxon Mobil Oil & Gas Producers 0.9
• 24 Microsoft Software & Computer Services 0.8
• 25 United Utilities Utilities 0.8
• 26 Standard Life Life Insurance 0.8
• 27 Cattles General Financial 0.8
• 28 Anheuser-Busch Beverages 0.8
• 29 Southwest Airlines Travel & Leisure 0.8
• 30 Spectris Electronic & Electrical Equipment 0.8
• 31 RSA Insurance Group Non-Life Insurance 0.7
• 32 Rolls Royce Aerospace & Defence 0.6
• 33 Encana Oil & Gas Producers 0.6
• 34 Intercontinental Hotels Travel & Leisure 0.6
• 35 Standard Chartered Banks 0.6
• 36 Lonmin Mining 0.6
• 37 Allstate Non-Life Insurance 0.6
• 38 Fiberweb Support Services 0.6
• 39 Everest Resources Non-Life Insurance 0.5
• 40 Xstrata Mining 0.5
• 41 Boeing Aerospace & Defence 0.5
• 42 HBOS Banks 0.5
• 43 Hansard Global Life Insurance 0.5
• 44 Cairn Energy Oil & Gas Producers 0.5
• 45 Illinois Tool Works Industrial Engineering 0.5
• 46 Man Group General Financial 0.5
• 47 Northern Foods Food Producers & Processors 0.5
• 48 JPMorgan Chase & Company Banks 0.4
• 49 EMC Corporation Massachusetts Technology Hardware & Equipment 0.4
• 50 Prodesse Investment General Financial 0.4

Rollinghome

Thanks Jon. For comparison perhaps you could do similar for the biggest UTs such as Invesco Perpetual Income?

Given that FTSE100 companies account for 82% of the entire UK stock market I'm sure you weren't suggesting that having 52% in such companies amounted to "tracking" the index as was later suggested.

jon3001

Rollinghome wrote: »

For comparison perhaps you could do similar for the biggest UTs such as Invesco Perpetual Income?

Perhaps I could I'm sure that will also be 'dominated by FTSE-100 companies'.

Rollinghome wrote: »

Given that FTSE100 companies account for 82% of the entire UK stock market I'm sure you weren't suggesting that having 52% in such companies amounted to "tracking" the index as was later suggested.

No. My concern was that a heavy allocation to UK large-caps is risky over the long term. It can amount to a bet on a single sector when there's a vast investment universe in which to seek opportunities.

The OP has revealed that this fund consititutes 5% of their portfolio. We don't really know if the other 95% also consists of funds 'dominated by FTSE-100 companies'.

If you're starting off small with limited funds for investments then it's probably a reasonable choice.

dunstonh

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.

I never said it was a tracker.

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?

Why should IFAs know in depth about something that is not within their remit to advise on?

If someone posts generic information then its fair to respond in a generic way. At that time in posting on the thread the make up of the investment was only known in a basic way which suggested a bias towards large caps. Large caps having underperformed for much of that period of investment. Jon has since posted a bit more information which shows the make up of the investment more (Although historic changes we dont know). So the discussion can continue based on that new information.

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?

Who said anything about deciding the merit of an investment? You seem to be making a lot of things up today in your usual attempts to have a go at IFAs. All I said was that when this investment was started, the typical consumer would not have the range of investments and options that are available today.

(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.)

The performance of investments that follow the FTSE 100 and FTSE all share typically perform differently to each other by a fair amount. FTSE100 has spent most of its time near the bottom and FTSE all share is typically mid table.

turbobob

Going from 1993 (which is just the earliest the MoneyAM site has data for this trust) it appears the share price (which is not the net asset value) has underperformed the FTSE100 by quite some margin... The sometimes wide divergence between the NAV and the actual share price is a characteristic of investment trusts (some have been discounted by the market by as much as 70 or 80% in recent times).

Anyway, blue is the FTSE100, white is the share price of BSET). This of course ignores any dividends which make up a part of the total return. Not a great performance though, you'd have to say.

RayWolfe

A lot of bickering on this thread which probably does not help the OP.
However, as the OP appears to have well over £400K invested, his original question here was a bit strange. With that sort of money invested, you either learn what is and is not good (rated) or you pay for that learning by employing an IFA.
British Assets Trust is one of many large International Growth investment trusts. Like many others, some better, some not, it is not exciting. It is slow, steady and boring. It will neither make your fortune nor lose it ... it's just what some people want. I bet in the initial offering to the OP it said nothing about fast bucks or returns out of the ordinary or excitement.
The OP may have been trying to make another point about the No Lose situation of investment managers and investment company directors. A truth, but one that a half a million investor would be well aware of because it applies to all his investments. Let's hope he has no hedge funds in his portfolio; there you are talking about a strange price structure.

RayWolfe

turbobob wrote: »

This of course ignores any dividends which make up a part of the total return.

The current yield is 6%, so it would make up a fair proportion of the total return.

Jake'sGran

Geriatric wrote: »

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,

How did you come to choose this particular investment? Don't get me wrong I have a mistake or two with the fiunds I have bought but overall, as my investments have been varied, I still seem to have done quite well. Did you take advantage of the tax efficient schemes such as PEPs and ISAs. One of my PEPs, a single company one (BG) has doubled since I started it in the 80s. All have dropped during the past year but are now picking up e.g. Fidelity Spec.situations. I have not sold anything and hope that my heirs will be able to continue holding some of the shares and funds. I put money into Alliance Investment Trust for my grandsons when they were small but have no idea how well it has done as I gave the file to their father.

I'm sorry that you seem to have made a bad choice but you did need to have diversified more in my opinion.

Rollinghome

dunstonh wrote: »

I never said it was a tracker.

OK so let's quote you. What you said was:

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

No, it is not the general makeup of his fund and nor does it track the FTSE100 as has been explained to you. It is a growth and income global fund. Do you now understand that?

dunstonh wrote: »

Why should IFAs know in depth about something that is not within their remit to advise on?

To say that you don't know about this company "in depth" seems to rather understate the position.

But, yes that is the trouble isn't it? Many people wrongly assume IFAs know about investment. The unfortunate fact is that many know nothing about any investment that doesn't pay them commission, which includes ITs.

I'd suggest that if you are totally clueless about an investment, even the largest and best known ones such as British Assets, then it's probably better not to make totaly inaccurate statements or advise for or against holding it.

An investment in an IT is held in shares, the price of which is determined by the market. To suggest that the length of time shares have been held is in some way relevent to the price is truely wacky. I hope your poor clients get better advice.

dunstonh wrote: »

FTSE100 has spent most of its time near the bottom and FTSE all share is typically mid table.

Near the bottom of what? Where an index resides in a table depends on what is included in the table. What relevence that has to this fund I have no idea.

Do you understand that the constituents of the FTSE is changing all the time and that 84% the FTSE All Share index is made up of those FTSE100 companies.

Rollinghome

RayWolfe wrote: »

With that sort of money invested, you either learn what is and is not good (rated) or you pay for that learning by employing an IFA.

But perhaps best not to assume that all IFAs have a clue about ITs and other non-commission paying investments.

With hindsight he would have got a better return from several other ITs including Foreign and Colonial plc. managed by the same outfit, but that's the the name of the game...