Critique my fund choices

sabretoothtigger

Fiver I agree with your choices though 3 is not much I think you got reasonable coverage and I dont see overlap.

Pacific is mostly in the richer countries of that area like Australia . It has five different currencies in there.

Japan on the other hand is your most controversial pick, personally I agree but it is only one single currency.
I also hold neptune's japan fund and he shorts yen and is long sterling and thats even more controversial but if you think which has fallen and which already rose I dont think he is far off the mark plus he gained 80% in 2008 so I wouldnt mind a repeat.

Japan is definitly under appreciated, they export to china they are right next door and if the Yuan is going up and Yen going down thats an ideal mix for good trade between them
Any Japan fund is packed full of global brand names not likely to be replaced by emerging countries any time soon quite likely in demand. The government is a mess but that is well known, between this and usa it is cheap


Less risky is aberdeen asia which covers all three of your choices in one single fund, if you did want to dilute japan that'd be one way

make sure that you periodically get some of those gains out and protected into lower risk areas.

sounds good

jimjames

Totton wrote: »

If I were adding the £50 I would consider a general global growth fund such as Ecclesiastical Amity International to sit alongside the other two or perhaps a balanced fund such as Troy Trojan etc. I'm not a fan of trackers for a 15 year investment though.

HTH,
Mickey

I'm curious about the comment on trackers for long term. As the number of managers who beat the index over 5 years is fairly low and the number over 10 years lower still, surely a tracker is a better bet long term than short term?

nrsql

How about (you couldn't do this with £150 per month but mabe later on or a cut down version until you build up enough)
Split between trackers
UK
Europe
US
Japan
Asia Pacific
Emerging markets

Then every 6 months (or whatever period you wish) move money around so they are levelish - add funds, move into cash, swap between funds, move into something defensive.
That way you pick up gains on sectors that grow rapidly and don't lose so much when they fall.

Voyager2002

OK, some random comments:
I think that trackers are fine for well-regulated markets such as those of Europe and North America, but for places like India and China I would want a manager to make my selections for me. And since local knowledge is important, I would divide my money between funds that invest in a small number of emerging markets, rather than a general emerging-market fund;
I do agree that Asia is where much of the growth will come over the next decade. However, it has attracted so much investment over the last year or so that most markets in Asia and Latin America are close to record levels and arguably are over-valued. At the moment I would put money elsewhere, with a view to switching into Asia once something more like normality returns.

Voyager2002

On emerging markets, see what happened yesterday in Bangladesh:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12033373

dunstonh

I think that trackers are fine for well-regulated markets such as those of Europe and North America, but for places like India and China I would want a manager to make my selections for me.

That is generally referred to as a core and satellite approach. You use trackers for the core funds (the established markets) and managed funds for the less established or niche markets. There is an awful lot of merit in that.

Rollinghome

dunstonh wrote: »

That is generally referred to as a core and satellite approach. You use trackers for the core funds (the established markets) and managed funds for the less established or niche markets. There is an awful lot of merit in that.

After rubbishing non-commission paying tracker funds for years, you now almost seem to see some sense in them. Well done.

It seems the impending RDR with the abolition of commission payments to IFAs from the fund managers is already having an effect.

dunstonh

After rubbishing non-commission paying tracker funds for years, you now almost seem to see some sense in them. Well done.

I havent rubbished them at all. I have pointed out the pros and cons and said that they should be used where appropriate.

It seems the impending RDR with the abolition of commission payments to IFAs from the fund managers is already having an effect.

Isnt making the slightest bit of difference.

MyLastFiver

Thanks everyone for their input. I have bought the HSBC Pacific ex-Japan Index fund.

Totton

jimjames wrote: »

I'm curious about the comment on trackers for long term. As the number of managers who beat the index over 5 years is fairly low and the number over 10 years lower still, surely a tracker is a better bet long term than short term?

Hi jimjames,
It's just my opinion after a lot of research and reading, having said that, I did enjoy Tim Hale in 'Smarter Investing' which is an excellent read and favours trackers/etf's.