Whats your portfolio made since 1994 - and how?

bobbyj_2

that sounds more like it. Even a bad year throws up some smallcap multibaggers of course.

nrsql

Need to also look at how figures are calculated. Say you make 200% over 20 years - you could say that's 10% per year and looks pretty good. If you look at compound annual growth though it turns out to be about 5.7% - compare with cash and decide what you are getting for the risk. Of course that's the whole point of having both.

gadgetmind

nrsql wrote: »

Of course that's the whole point of having both.

The main point of having both is that asset rebalancing means that you'll automatically move out of equities as the prices rise and then back in as they fall. Sell high, buy low, retire early. Simples!

riskyb

bobbyj wrote: »

DO YOUR RESEARCH.

It was quite clear XEL was an absolute certainty to strike oil last year on an already proven well. The market was more concerned about them securing a drilling rig but once that was confirmed it was all systems go 60p to 400p wasn't it? Oh and you need a gambling streak to make big money.

Shale gas stocks will be the next huge winners. CAD & SLE look poised for great gains and more importantly they have been dragged down to silly levels in the market sell off. All the major players are moving into East Europe just where these 2 minnows are based.

Luckily I am in both of these - keeping fingers crossed
RB

moneylover

gadgetmind wrote: »

The main point of having both is that asset rebalancing means that you'll automatically move out of equities as the prices rise and then back in as they fall. Sell high, buy low, retire early. Simples!

but I get the impression that people who invest largely with the dividend in mind consider a share price rise to just be the icing on the cake and let their shares go up and down? Or do dividend chasers also pull out when the market starts to drop?

gadgetmind

moneylover wrote: »

but I get the impression that people who invest largely with the dividend in mind consider a share price rise to just be the icing on the cake and let their shares go up and down? Or do dividend chasers also pull out when the market starts to drop?

There are two schools of thought. At least: you know how schools of thought are!

One approach is based on the (apocryphal?) story of someone called Doris who bought some shares, stuck them in a box for a large fraction of a century, and when they were found, they had (presumably with auto divi reinvestment?) outperformed all the fancy-pants managed funds.

Another school permits "fiddling". When done mechanically, this rebalances a portfolio (either by trading or "topping up") to ensure no one company or sector either twindles or dominates. Some twiddlers also use macro-economic concerns, and asset allocation, to drive their twiddles.

I haven't yet decided which I am, but I do try and maintain a sensible balance of cash, bonds and equities. So saying, I am at close to zero bonds other than those held in some managed funds and ITs, but I am 25% in cash.

moneylover

my mum had Daily Mail shares that she inherited from her father who died 50 years before her and he had held DM shares since she was a child in the first years of the 20th century. In those days, before people had phones let alone online dealing, he used to take himself from Ealing to 'town' to see his broker and rebalance his portfolio. When he had done well, he used to take my grandmother out to dinner. After the first world war, he was a quantity surveyor for a while, then lived on his shares.
When my mother inherited she sold some shares but most were left for me to dispose of when she died in 2003. They were very poor value then compared with in my grandfathers day. Also they were voting shares and not normally traded on the stock exchange so I had some difficulty selling them!

gadgetmind

moneylover wrote: »

Also they were voting shares and not normally traded on the stock exchange so I had some difficulty selling them!

I think that corporate actions such as mergers, demergers, acquisitions, rights issues, and the like are more common nowadays, so you can't take your eye off the ball in the way you could in slower times.

However, detailed information is now at our fingertips, and we can trade very quickly, perhaps too quickly, which helps balance things.

I live in fear of corporate actions, partly because it confuses my tracking and adds complexity to tax returns, and partly because my wife uses every shred of her 18% CGT band. Yes, I could go for loan notes, but it all adds cognitive load.

It's corporate actions that will probably drive me to move away from holding equities directly in my dotage; I've been doing complex tax returns since I was a student and I deserve a break!

DominicH

talexuser wrote: »

The difficulty is I stated PEPs around 1995 and put in 6000, 7000, etc up to now 10680 every year bar 1 or 2 slow years which went to cash ISAs. So how do I calculate an average yearly growth for a constantly increasing investment?

I was just reading the other day that, for this sort of reason, the great majority of investors have no real idea what return they have achieved over the years. The fact that money goes into and out of their investments at irregular periods and in irregular amounts makes it non-trivial to calculate the return.
That said, it's not THAT difficult. You can do it in a simple spreadsheet.

sabretoothtigger

Cashflow is an important overview. If the markets up then get your original out or least invest it elsewhere

I said that to someone who got Barc at 70p. Way past 300 it was time to sell the original stake at least but nope, now its at 140 maybe up for a while but I think 120 is its destination

I have admit I failed to sell my few barc at 330 this year, it fell to 320 before I checked and I then waited instead of selling. I never believe anyone who says they always sell at the top



5k to 1m+ would need 99% interest in your savings account. The compounding over 8 years makes it more
[1.99^8 x 5000]

I more then doubled my money on SKR this year. Great phosphate idea, but I didnt sell now the shares dont even trade anymore.
That wasnt very clever, it helps if you have giant portions of shares and can easily justify broker fees all the times

I more then doubled on EMED, then they delayed the mine and its more then halved. Still copper recovered well enough today


So my chances of 99% APR is unlikely because I dont sell at the top and buy at the bottom. Im celebrating if I get near double figures, I think realism pays dividends

Which have yields this high other than the insurers?

BAE has 6%
VOD is 8% as of next year allegedly
TEF is not listed here but you all know who O2 are. Shows as 9.5%
BNC or Santander will be something off the scale like 12%


The last two rely on south america growth, TEF is big in Chile I think so worry about down there more then the mess we have on our doorstep which wont ever end imo


EMG is high yield. Theres more then a few just most would say they are not low risk like insurers but I only like SL out of the insurance group, I'd buy them again at 130 or maybe 170 if optimistic


I miss stuff all the time. I have on my desk pad in front of me written down ABG - 400 and I saw it at 411 and waited. Now its 600, dam it :mad: :rotfl:
(I own just a tiny bit)

Today I bought but also sold KAZ BLT BP Now I got a gain but how was I supposed to know China is offering to buy Italy debt, cue big rally in all these tomorrow. :huh: