Invesco Perpetual High Income

ses6jwg

artha wrote: »

and the point is?

Sorry

!!!!!!.

chesky369

Hah! I've had this for yonks now, and at first was pretty smug about it. However, for the past few months I've felt a bit like ........ well, you know when you're amongst friends and they're all slightly sloshed and everything's rosy and you're the only one that's sober - nothing that happens is the least bit funny and they're all rolling around, heaving with laughter. That's how I feel about Invesco and Mr Woodford right now. Couldn't blame him for the past year or so, but really, it ought to be a bit jollier by now. Come on, I want to be laughing too.

Rollinghome

That is I'm afraid the downside with managed funds, even the most vaunted ones. You'll do well if you're are able to move between funds and move into the right one at the right time. If you aren't able to do that then (dare I say it here?) you might be better of with a tracker or ETF.

The choice is yours, you can go for a tracker/ETF that will consistently do better than average in its sector but can't ever be the very best or you can go for a fund that has the possibilty of outperforming but also could do the opposite. Any fund that moves away from just tracking an index has the potential either to outperform or underperform it - especially if it has the additional burden of higher fees. As they say often enough, past performance is no guide to the future.

dunstonh

That is I'm afraid the downside with managed funds, even the most vaunted ones.

And many tracker funds. Its not unique to managed. If the area invested in is not the right place to be then you will not be top of the ladder whether its a tracker or a managed fund. FTSE100 trackers and FTSE 250 trackers are perfect examples.

This cycle so far is not geared to equity income but more to recovery and if you take the obvious recovery fund, M&G recovery, it has performed double over the L&G FTSE trackers and 8 times better than Inv Perp HI over 12 months. (you could replace the M&G fund with many spec sits, recovery/value funds and also FTSE 250 trackers)

Also, it is still very short term. Up to March it was outperforming trackers and other managed funds. Its only since March that its been below par and Woodford has not hidden his views about being defensive. He could still end up being right over the long term even if he is wrong in the short term.

We know you like trackers Rollinghome but many here dont just want average performance. They look for outperformance.

cheerfulcat

Hi, bendix,

bendix wrote: »

Is anyone else getting frustrated with Neil Woodford and this damn fund?

Yes, yes, yes we keep hearing the defensive stocks are coming to the fore, but having been in this for six months I've sat back patiently while it has significantly underperformed other UK share funds, waiting for catch up and day after day I watch the key shares it holds - AZ, GSK, BAT, Vodafone etc - do absolutely nothing.

Neil Woodford investment guru, my a**e.

Rant over :rotfl:

It's an income fund, with a mandate to provide a high ( relative ) income and some capital growth. It seems to me to have done pretty well against its benchmark and has provided handsomely increasing dividends. As an income seeker, I'm happy with this and the Edinburgh IT run on roughly the same lines.

jamesd

Yes, it's frustrating. I switched much of my holding of this one to emerging markets and resources funds when it seemed likely that we were in a bull market earlier this year. Neil Woodford seems quite likely to be right about the economy but the stock market doesn't have to follow the economy, particularly in the short term.

I don't think that defensive stocks are coming to the fore. I think we're still in a bull market and that this will continue for a while before it becomes a good idea to go defensive. Though for people not holding this fund who want to reduce risk, switching into it now might be interesting. If defensives improve they will gain and if the markets drop they would probably drop less than the rest of the market, retaining some of the gains there have been so far from the non-defensive holdings.

Worth remembering that this fund is a very popular retirement fund and people tend to worry more about large drops than missed large increases. What he's doing makes a lot of sense for many of the holders of the fund.

dunstonh

Worth remembering that this fund is a very popular retirement fund and people tend to worry more about large drops than missed large increases. What he's doing makes a lot of sense for many of the holders of the fund.

True. The fund does provide a good yield with the potential to push up the fund value which can be used in rebalances to keep some inflation proofing in there.

cogito

I've a sizeable chunk in this fund and I'm happy to keep it there. It won't ever be a stellar performer in the short term but long term it should do well - as it has in the past.

If you want a fund of mainly UK based companies with a strong dividend flow and good overseas earnings, it's not easy to see a better one.

bendix

cogito wrote: »

I've a sizeable chunk in this fund and I'm happy to keep it there. It won't ever be a stellar performer in the short term but long term it should do well - as it has in the past.

If you want a fund of mainly UK based companies with a strong dividend flow and good overseas earnings, it's not easy to see a better one.

No. I want a fund of mainly UK based comanies with a strong dividend flow and good overseas earnings that isn't lagging ridiculously behind one of the strongest short-term rallies in FTSE history.

Rollinghome

dunstonh wrote: »

We know you like trackers Rollinghome but many here dont just want average performance. They look for outperformance.

And we know that the dodgier advisers hate any products like tracker funds that earn them less commission. Trackers with low management fees consistently outperform the average managed fund in their sector. It's that consistency that's most attractive to many investors. There's nothing magical about it. It's just the result of management fees that are likely to be just a third of managed funds. ETFs can have still lower fees.

I'd repeat that doesn't make trackers the one-shot answer to everything as some of their fans suggest, which is why I don't have funds in one. An investment in a tracker is an investment in that index which may or may not be the right move. They may be ideal core-investments for many people however and investors should be aware why some commission-greedy advisers might say otherwise.

For others investment trusts may be more suitable, which can have fees as low as tracker UTs and again don't pay annual trail commission to advisers.

I'd agree with you that Neil Woodford might turn out to be quite right, especially after the pullback thay many expect. Which may mean that some of this month's high-flyers will be very wrong.