Hargreaves Lansdown - tomorrow's winners

StevieJ

Jake'sGran wrote: »

I agree with Mike88 about tracking the fund managers and am therefore surprised that the list does not include Angus Tulloch's First State Asia Pacific Leaders.

Also, I feel sure that ten years ago the list will have included Jupiter Income but this is another one that is it the bottom section of a list of similar funds.

Struggling a bit at the moment I think due to being a little OZcentric, I do like that fund. BTW Tulloch is wrong sector here he is.

http://citywire.co.uk/money/fund-and-fund-manager-performance/-/unit-trusts/asia-pacific-excluding-japan/fund-manager-league-table.aspx?CitywireClassID=5&RankModelID=8

StevieJ

koru wrote: »

Are you sure that is what they have measured him against? Although they have said that he is in the specialist sector, they have measured his Financial Opportunities fund against the specific FTSE index for global financial companies, as you can see here:
http://www.bestinvest.co.uk/investment-research/fund-research/fact-sheet/jupfin/jupiter-financial-opportunities/performance

Unless they are measuring the relative performance of the fund in a different way from the relative performance of the manager, they do seem to be using pretty specific comparator indices. I am quite impressed by this analysis they are making available, given that it is provided free, even to non-clients.

I am not sure of anything but it does say Sector - Specialist In your example his fund has outperformed the finance sector by 38% over three years even after his current period of under performance. This would suggest that the out performance of 1.3% doesn't relate to the finance sector.

jimjames

koru wrote: »

Edit: I am not even sure if HL were recommending these 15 funds in 2000. I can't find the article any more, but if I remember correctly they did not explicitly claim that these were recommendations from 2000. .

See my previous post showing the funds they recommended in 2000, none appear to be on the Wealth 150 now and most no longer even seem to exist.

Jupiter Undervalued assets
Fidelity Recovery
Sarasin Equisar
Investec European portfolio
HL Geared Growth portfolio (Split capital shares!!!)
Eagle Star with profits bond

Just checked Jupiter undervalued assets, fund still exists, over last 5 years increase was 5% vs 30% in FTSE All share index. Fidelity Recovery does not appear to exist (maybe merged into special situations??)

Rollinghome

jimjames wrote: »

Fidelity Recovery does not appear to exist (maybe merged into special situations??)

Became the Fidelity UK Aggressive. Hasn't done too badly but for an aggressive fund well in the wake of a FTSE 250 tracker.

Jake'sGran

StevieJ wrote: »

Struggling a bit at the moment I think due to being a little OZcentric, I do like that fund. BTW Tulloch is wrong sector here he is.

Not sure what your last sentence means. The link you gave shows Tulloch as the manager of the fund I mentioned.

koru

StevieJ wrote: »

I am not sure of anything but it does say Sector - Specialist In your example his fund has outperformed the finance sector by 38% over three years even after his current period of under performance. This would suggest that the out performance of 1.3% doesn't relate to the finance sector.

I thought he had only been managing that fund for the last six months. Most of the 1.3% average outperformance over the last three years for Gibbs the manager will reflect his time at New Star. Therefore, you should not expect his performance over the last three years to correspond to the performance of Jupiter Financials over the same period. Nevertheless, you might be right that they are comparing him against the entire specialist sector, and if that's right, I certainly agree with you that this is a pointless comparison because that sector is so diverse that it provides no meaningful comparison.

StevieJ

koru wrote: »

I thought he had only been managing that fund for the last six months. Most of the 1.3% average outperformance over the last three years for Gibbs the manager will reflect his time at New Star. Therefore, you should not expect his performance over the last three years to correspond to the performance of Jupiter Financials over the same period. Nevertheless, you might be right that they are comparing him against the entire specialist sector, and if that's right, I certainly agree with you that this is a pointless comparison because that sector is so diverse that it provides no meaningful comparison.

You have the wrong chap, it was Guy de Blonay that moved from NewStar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/6447309/New-Stars-Guy-de-Blonay-defects-back-to-Jupiter.html

StevieJ

Jake'sGran wrote: »

Not sure what your last sentence means. The link you gave shows Tulloch as the manager of the fund I mentioned.

Yes, the link I provided was a performance list of Asia Pacific managers and funds, the link you originally commented on (stating that you were surprised Tulloch was missing) was a link to Emerging market funds.

koru

StevieJ wrote: »

You have the wrong chap, it was Guy de Blonay that moved from NewStar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/6447309/New-Stars-Guy-de-Blonay-defects-back-to-Jupiter.html

That's what I get for skim reading a page which started with Gibbs but switched to Blonay!

koru

le_loup wrote: »

... and overcharged with performance fees! The last of these that I looked at takes the usual 1.5% and then takes 20% if it performs over LIBOR! LIBOR!
And people still buy these funds.

However, there are some that have no performance fees. For instance, Newton Real Return and Standard Life Global Absolute Returns Strategies. Both have performed consistently well over the last five years, although they did both suffer a bit around the time of the collapse of Lehman's, though not nearly as bad as the equity markets. Given the aim of steady, relatively low risk performance, I would say that you should be comparing them with bond funds, and they are doing way better than the bond fund sectors. The Blackrock fund must have made some very bad calls over the last year or more in order to fail to deliver any growth in what is a relatively benign market.