Help me rebalance my failing S&S ISAs Portfolio - Sept 2011

lvader

Have you analysed your managed funds to take out the effect of currency fluctuations?

darkpool

Jegersmart wrote: »

If you take the 12 year period from 1999 to 2011 (a very unfortunate period ofc) a FTSE100 Tracker would be overall considerably down. Very few managed funds have done anywhere near as bad as that.

do you have any proof of that? academic proof, not just the names of a few funds that have done well.

cloud_dog

Yes Jagersmart..... academically can you prove to me, categorically, that the sun does actually rise in the morning, rather than me just seeing it with my own eyes?

darkpool

cloud_dog wrote: »

Yes Jagersmart..... academically can you prove to me, categorically, that the sun does actually rise in the morning, rather than me just seeing it with my own eyes?

be honest, most of the pro fund arguments on this thread have been along the lines of "perp high income has done well". some of us here require slightly more sophisticated evidence than that.

perhaps you have something more than anecdotal evidence to support the value of active management?

Jegersmart

darkpool wrote: »

do you have any proof of that? academic proof, not just the names of a few funds that have done well.

I guess we all have access to the same tools for research, but lets look at Pru FTSE100 Tracker. Returns as follows:

1 year: -3.09%
3 years: +45.99%
5 years: +4.92%
10 years: + 31.8%

On Trustnet, it is difficult to choose a direct comparable sector - but we can look at the UK focussed sectors (with perhaps the fair assumption that the person choosing the tracker wanted to invest in UK equities):

UK Equity Income: 55 funds that were around 10 years ago, of which the tracker above has outperformed 6 of the funds there in. i.e 49 of 55 funds outperformed.

UK All companies: 157 funds, this tracker outperformed around 47 of them.

UK Smaller companies: 35 funds, this tracker would have outformed 3 of these.

Any funds focussed on UK with any remit or asset class: 409 funds, 343 of which have outperformed this tracker.

I am sure that there may be differences in trackers so that some perform better than others for whatever reason, this one just picked at random. I am assuming that the data on Trustnet is of reasonable quality and the parameters picked are acceptable. Please feel free to do your own research and let me know how you get on.

I should also add that there may be other trackers in these results that have done better that make up some of the total number in question, I haven't checked. This is because I do not want to spend too much time on this, as trackers do not (or very rarely at best) fit my investment style and aims.

Good luck, and of course the above is not any type of proof - although I am not sure what "academic" proof is? Is that like when academics say that "capitalism works"?

darkpool

Jegersmart wrote: »

Good luck, and of course the above is not any type of proof - although I am not sure what "academic" proof is? Is that like when academics say that "capitalism works"?

did you consider survivorship bias in your research.....

academic, as in not advertising material from the fund industry and not the names of a few funds that have done well.

it has been suggested that only 1.9% of funds deliver alpha.

Jegersmart

darkpool wrote: »

did you consider survivorship bias in your research.....

academic, as in not advertising material from the fund industry and not the names of a few funds that have done well.

it has been suggested that only 1.9% of funds deliver alpha.

No, I do not have access to any records showing "survivorship".

Is it me, or is it ironic that you ask for "academic proof" and then finish your post with "it has been suggested that only 1.9% of funds deliver alpha"?

I think the problem we two will have discussing this is that you seem to be more interested in the intellectual debate rather than investing and making returns. As I said, trackers do not fit my aims and style of investing except in very rare circumstances - if you feel the opposite that is completely fine with me - you may be right. As I actively manage my portfolio it would be impossible to know in any case, although I know that I outperformed that tracker in only a 3 year period from around 2007 to 2010. Over 10 years I would estimate (conservatively) that I have made around 95-105% gain with a number of small mistakes along the way. Many have made far more I am sure. Kind of makes you wish you had put it all in Marlboro Special Sits 10 years ago tbh....

We live and learn. Or at least 1.9% of us do.

J

Ark_Welder

MrMalkin wrote: »

...and maybe we can start to turn this thread away from the catty (and somewhat boring) active vs. passive debate.

The answer appears to be: no

darkpool

Jegersmart wrote: »

IAs I said, trackers do not fit my aims and style of investing except in very rare circumstances - if you feel the opposite that is completely fine with me - you may be right.

fair enough, if you're happy that AM is worth it i'm not going to argue.

gadgetmind

cloud_dog wrote: »

Yes Jagersmart..... academically can you prove to me, categorically, that the sun does actually rise in the morning, rather than me just seeing it with my own eyes?

Dunno about Jagersmart, but I'd want something more than arm waving before I invested my money.