JPMorgan Natural Resources or First State Global Resources

mr_fishbulb

Aegis wrote: »

If you ultimately can't decide between two funds, is there anything stopping you from going into both?

Kavor wrote: »

About a month ago I found myself in exactly the same position as you. In the end, I couldn't decide between the two funds so ended up investing in both.

I can only afford to put £50/month into it. Minimum that Hargreaves Lansdow allow

mr_fishbulb

StevieJ wrote: »

I think the First State fund is more defensive in a high risk area.

Yeah I had been reading that the JPM fund will invest in mining companies which haven't extracted anything from the ground yet, whereas the First State fund will only invest in companies which are actually in production.

bendix

Jeez, mr_fishbulb. If you're investing £50 a month into it, does it really matter which fund you go into? It's hardly going to massively impact your wealth is it? They both invest in the same range of assets. Don't sweat the small stuff.

mr_fishbulb

bendix wrote: »

Jeez, mr_fishbulb. If you're investing £50 a month into it, does it really matter which fund you go into? It's hardly going to massively impact your wealth is it? They both invest in the same range of assets. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Yeah you're right Bendix, it's not going to make a massive difference with the figures involved Just wanted to hone my fund picking skills for when I have lots to play with (as if that day will ever come!!)

bendix

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

Yeah you're right Bendix, it's not going to make a massive difference with the figures involved Just wanted to hone my fund picking skills for when I have lots to play with (as if that day will ever come!!)

At the end of the day, I never worry too much about fund picking. Over the long term - and that's what we're focused on, right - I tend to get the feeling that one asset class fund is pretty much the same as another. The important thing for me is asset allocation - that's what i focus on. Fretting about what fund within that asset allocation just adds another layer of decision on that isnt worth it.

I'm sure the experts will abuse me, but one Asia Pac fund, for example, invests in pretty much the same stuff as another and any short-term performance variances tend to be neutralised over 5-10 years.

mr_fishbulb

bendix wrote: »

I'm sure the experts will abuse me, but one Asia Pac fund, for example, invests in pretty much the same stuff as another and any short-term performance variances tend to be neutralised over 5-10 years.

Good point. Also well illustrated by the top 5 holdings of the 2 Tech funds I'm looking at:

Fund 1:
Apple
Cisco Systems
Microsoft Corp
Google Inc. Cl A
International Business Machines Corp

Fund 2:
Cisco Systems
Intel Corp
Microsoft Corp
Apple
Google Inc. Cl A

Round_The_Bend

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

I can only afford to put £50/month into it. Minimum that Hargreaves Lansdow allow

Interactive Investor at www.iii.co.uk allows you to invest in funds with as little as £20, so this may be worth considering. At least, this would allow you to invest in both.

[Deleted User]

Hi,

what about being a bit adventurous, down under.

wombat42_2

[Deleted User] wrote:

Hi,

what about being a bit adventurous, down under.

seriously risky as Ozzy resources companies depends so much on China and things are getting precarious in China right now.

I am 100% investing in Gold stocks (Investec Global Gold). There is a realistic theoretical basis for $5000 gold.

barny_100

[Deleted User] wrote:

Hi,

what about being a bit adventurous, down under.

With a socialist in charge about to whack a 40% tax on mining profits?