Jupiter Merlin

FATHEROFTWO_2

I was having a look at alternative ways of investing into funds and revisited the Jupiter merlin cautious/balanced/growth and worldwide funds which as many of you know are fund of funds .

I have my own portfolio of about 15 funds that I think is balanced.

There are a few of my funds listed as part of the prefered jupiter merlin list of funds but I notice that most of the funds are in fact Jupiter funds.
On looking at them and running graph comparisons against most of my funds I found that they performed less than the mirror ones I had selected .

The few ones that were not Jupiter were good funds and some of them I had in my folio.Why dont merlin act for the best interest of there clients and pick the best performing funds to have within there fund of funds or is it all down to selling there own in house funds?

Question is why dont people look at what these merlin fund of funds have in the way of funds and either invest with an execution broker and save fees or do there own comparison and find better funds.The only problem I have is the asset allocation within the fund of funds and trying to balance my own folio.

I find the morningstar x ray fascility a good way of showing the sector breakdown.

Does anyone else do what I do or have any other suggestion as to how I could refine this selection process.I also use trustnet,citywire and morningstar?

sabretoothtigger

Fund of funds might be best for people who are completely hands off or very busy individuals.

Im more interested in doing it myself so I see only disadvantages from it and also maybe higher fees but if I was a barrister working 70 hours a week with tons of money and zero time then I guess its highly attractive even at a premium


Try using HL to look at funds also maybe

dunstonh

There are a few of my funds listed as part of the prefered jupiter merlin list of funds but I notice that most of the funds are in fact Jupiter funds.

Just checked the stats and it shows that 3 of the top 10 holdings were in Jupiter funds.

Question is why dont people look at what these merlin fund of funds have in the way of funds and either invest with an execution broker and save fees or do there own comparison and find better funds.

You can do. However, the whole point of using a fund like that is that you have a fund manager doing the work. If you look at the historical breakdown of the fund you will see that the fund manager team on this fund is very active with buying and selling.

For example, in may the fixed interest sector weighting was 32.78%, UK 33.35%, Int 17.17%, money market 16.70%. In August it was 26.10%, 49.80%, 9.10% and 15% respectively. If you check the month by month fluctuations (which you probably cannot do on morningstar though) you will see how much it changes.

You are paying someone to do the work. It is the lazy investor option and it works for lazy investors. If you want to to do the same then be prepared to be active but also be wary that if you want to cop the holdings and transactions you would be doing it some time after the event.

EdInvestor

This high portfolio turnover generates considerable extra transaction costs (not included in the AMC, which is usually high anyway) and this accounts for the much higher charges on many fund of funds/multi manager type products.

FATHEROFTWO_2

Dunstonh.

Do you think that having 3 out of the top 10 holdings is a good performance for a fund of funds investment.

Some of the funds I have in comparison have done far better than Jupiters fund of fund selection.

It just seems to me that they prefer to keep the selection in house and save on the fees taking the integrity out of an independent fund of fund for the benefit of the investor

dunstonh

Do you think that having 3 out of the top 10 holdings is a good performance for a fund of funds investment.

I know what you are getting at but you will find many FoFs use in house funds a fair bit. However, they dont have to be independent or be seen to be independent.

It's probable that they get to use Jupiter funds much cheaper than other fund houses, as you suggest. Plus, they almost certainly have far more data available to them.

Some of the funds I have in comparison have done far better than Jupiters fund of fund selection.

Not many with the same risk profile though. It is also fairly consistent. Some of the riskier ones have turned in more YTD and that has seen drop into the second quartile but its been a period where higher risk has paid off.

FATHEROFTWO_2

dunstonh wrote: »

I know what you are getting at but you will find many FoFs use in house funds a fair bit. However, they dont have to be independent or be seen to be independent.

It's probable that they get to use Jupiter funds much cheaper than other fund houses, as you suggest. Plus, they almost certainly have far more data available to them.


Not many with the same risk profile though. It is also fairly consistent. Some of the riskier ones have turned in more YTD and that has seen drop into the second quartile but its been a period where higher risk has paid off.

Interesting.

Dunstonh here is a comparison chart comparing Jupiter in with one of the market leaders Artemis which might not be the best

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?type=chart&display=chart&code=mex%3AJUI&it=ukut&timeframe=5y&index=ukof%3Amex%3A8AI&versus=&linetype=line&Go=Plot+&overlay=&overlay2=&overlay3=&overlay4=&indicator=&indicator2=&indicator3=&indicator4=&chartwidth=1112&gridlines=on&buylines=on&triggers=on&logplot=on

Thers not a lot in it but Artemis seems to outperform Jupiter and both are rated as medium risk I believe however Jupter is rated 1 crowns compared to Artemis 3 crown

Jupiter seems to be in the same bracket as Artemis and jupiter us rated 3 star and artemis 4 star with morningstar

http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/comparefund/default.aspx?secList=[{'i': 'F0GBR04C4G', 'n': 'Jupiter Income Trust Inc', 'p': '', 't': 2}, {'i': 'F0GBR04SCX', 'n': 'Artemis Income Inc', 'p': '', 't': 2}]

The morningstar filter shows Jupiter inc way down the list as well I think on the 4 page.

http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/fundscreener/results.aspx?lang=en-GB&Category=EUCA000552&Universe=FOGBR%24%24ISA&IncorAcc=1%7c0&InvestorType=-1&Return=NULL%7cNULL%7cNULL%7cNULL%7cNULL%7c

Morningstar qualitive rating shows artemis in the top 3
http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/fundscreener/results.aspx?lang=en-GB&Category=EUCA000552&Universe=FOGBR%24%24ISA&IncorAcc=1%7c0&InvestorType=-1&Return=NULL%7cNULL%7cNULL%7cNULL%7cNULL%7c

Question is if you are prepared to do your own research using these sites is this the best way to go rather than using a fund of funds?
and is this the best way to do it rather than incurring FA fees and better to use the hargreaves lansdown fund site?

dunstonh

Dunstonh here is a comparison chart comparing Jupiter in with one of the market leaders Artemis which might not be the best

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...=on&logplot=on

Thers not a lot in it but Artemis seems to outperform Jupiter and both are rated as medium risk I believe however Jupter is rated 1 crowns compared to Artemis 3 crown

They are different funds in different sectors with different objectives. The Artemis fund is in the UK Equity Income Sector and the Jupiter fund is in the Cautious Managed Sector. The Artemis fund is higher risk than the Jupiter fund. The Artemis fund has underperformed it's sector average over 12 months where the Jupiter fund has outperformed its sector average.

Question is if you are prepared to do your own research using these sites is this the best way to go rather than using a fund of funds?

Its fine to do your own research. However, you need to know what you are doing and understanding the data and information.

is this the best way to do it rather than incurring FA fees and better to use the hargreaves lansdown fund site?

DIY investing is like any DIY job. If you can do it yourself then it will be cheaper. However, you could end up making a pigs ear of it and costing you far more in the long run rather than using a professional. Although if you know what you are doing you will be fine.

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote: »

This high portfolio turnover generates considerable extra transaction costs (not included in the AMC, which is usually high anyway) and this accounts for the much higher charges on many fund of funds/multi manager type products.

thats why I prefer manager of manager portfolios as you get all the benefits of fund of funds without the much higher costs.

EdInvestor

whiteflag wrote: »

thats why I prefer manager of manager portfolios as you get all the benefits of fund of funds without the much higher costs.

Perhaps you could give an example of the difference, whiteflag.Usually the two types of portfolios seem to be lumped together as having similar cost structures - if that's not the case it would be useful to know..

FATHEROFTWO_2

Dunstonh.

Obviously you have access to better information/data than me as when I check the citywire fund list it shows Jupiter inc and artemis inc as in the equity income sector.

The morningstar site also show boh funds in the same sector.

Is there any site that correctly categorises the funds in the proper fund risk category?