Ok then - How do I choose a S&S ISA!

carnet

Browntrout wrote: »

I starting buying and selling company shares which if you think about it is the ultimate diy process. Then I read a book on fund investment that goes into the whole tracker vs active discussion, it is called 'Fundology' by John Chatfield-Roberts.

John Chatfeild - Roberts' book was recommended on these forums over a year ago when it was first published

Here is a current snapshot of my fund portfolio;

Allianz RCM BRIC Stars A - Had it, sold.
AXA Talents R - Don't fancy it.
First State Global Resources - Had, sold. Better resource funds around.
Investec Managed Growth A Acc - Had, sold
Artemis New Enterprises - Had it, glad to be out.
Invesco Perp Income Acc - Far too big for me.
JPM Global Equity Income A Acc - Better globeqinc fund being launched soon
JPM Japan A - Small caps suffering,also too big
Jupiter China Acc - Prefer FS offering (after the crash ays)
Jupiter Ecology - Prefer certain environmental IT's
Jupiter High Income - Not for me, also too big.
Jupiter Merlin Growth Portfolio Acc - Better FoF around, also too big
Jupiter Merlin Worldwide Pfolio Acc- Even Jupiter have a better global fund
Merrill Lynch Gold & General Acc - IT equivalent has much better record
Neptune Global Alpha A Acc - Had it, sold.
Neptune Russia & Gtr Russia A Acc - Remit too narrow, prefer other EE funds
New Star Global Financials R - Had it, sold
ResolutionAsset Argnt Eurpn Alpha A - Had it, sold
ResolutionAsset Cartesian UK Opps A - Had it, sold
Schroder European Alpha Plus Acc - Had it, sold getting too big.
Schroder Medical Discovery Acc - Ugh !
Stan Life Inv UK Eq High Inc R Acc - Had it when it was small,now too big
Stan Life Inv UK Eq Unconstrained R - Had it, sold. Manager's tenure ?


Agree with your other comments apart from the high IFA commission figure.

Browntrout_2

carnet wrote: »

First State Global Resources - Had, sold. Better resource funds around.
Invesco Perp Income Acc - Far too big for me.
JPM Japan A - Small caps suffering,also too big
Jupiter China Acc - Prefer FS offering (after the crash ays)
Jupiter High Income - Not for me, also too big.
Jupiter Merlin Growth Portfolio Acc - Better FoF around, also too big
Merrill Lynch Gold & General Acc - IT equivalent has much better record
Schroder European Alpha Plus Acc - Had it, sold getting too big.
Stan Life Inv UK Eq High Inc R Acc - Had it when it was small,now too big
Stan Life Inv UK Eq Unconstrained R - Had it, sold. Manager's tenure ?

Thanks for that carnet, certainly some food for thought there, I have edited the list down a bit. Can you explain the two abbreviations FS and IT highlighted/underlined please?

I see 'too big' is a common theme for you. On the topic of the OP, what criteria do you use in this respect?

I believe the SLI UK Equity Unconstrained is going to be capped to new investors at £500M to keep it small and nimble.

Tend to agree on JPM Japan, my worst performing Fund so far this year down ~4% but will continue to hold for now.

I am showing a 15% return on First State Global Resources in three months, anything more would just be plain greedy.

pjala

dunstonh wrote: »

Its not just sectors. Different funds within a sector have different risks. For example, in the UK Equity Income sector, Invesco Perpetual High Income Fund is slightly higher risk than Artemis Income. Or in UK Other bond sector you have M & G Optimal Income fund rated quite a bit higher risk than New Star High Yield Bond.

Is there any web site / information available to the average punter about this?
I would, for instance, want a list of funds in sectors listed in risk order, then a list of sectors listed in risk order. This is a key if possible, not just high/medium/low, but an ordered list!

To put the icing on the cake, I would want a list of year on year returns for each of those. The ability to filter out the worst returns, thus ending up with the highest return funds over previous years, linked into risk factors....

Thanks

jamesd

pjala, one of the things you can do is look at where the money goes. In general:

• smaller companies are more risky than larger
• fewer companies held produce more risk than more held
• fund objectives matter, some go more for high returns, others compromise that for extra safety.

debbie42

pjala wrote: »

Is there any web site / information available to the average punter about this?

Have you looked at this site?
http://www.trustnet.com/

stphnstevey

Ok - Done 'some' research - time for the riducule (or would prefer helpful advice!)

I have formed a list of my top 16 funds, using the H&L website research. I did this by:

a) Firstly concentrating on past performance - I know this is not a garantee of future performance, but for a newbie like me, I want to know my fund choice can at least show a substantial substainable return over at least a five year period. This indicates to me - reliability and consistant management.

I averaged the performance over five years to iron out the peaks and troughs and went no where near any 'roller coaster' rides as my stomach wouldn't stand it!

b) I then checked the geographical area and sectors. As long as I had a good mix of geography between my funds I was happy.

The sectors were more difficult to define as I often disagreed with the sector they were classed in! Also, certain sectors have done better than others, so here again as long as I had a 'fair' spread of sectors, I wasn't to bothered if I specialised a little.

c) Next I looked at charges, here I was looking at the gain compared to any increased charges over the norm. I quickly found that H&L Initial Charges are normally 0% and Annual Management average 1.25%.

So here's my list, advice welcome and intelligent advice considered!:

Jupiter Emerging European Opportunities Accumulation Units
Neptune European Opportunities Fund A Accumulation
JPMorgan Natural Resources Accumulation Units
INVESCO PERPETUAL Latin American Accumulation Units
UBS UK Smaller Companies 'A' Class Accumulation Units
Scottish Widows Latin American NAV 'A' Shares Accumulation Shares
Old Mutual UK Select Mid Cap Income Units
M & G Global Basics Income Units Class X
M & G Global Basics Growth Units Class X
Threadneedle Latin America Class 1 Accumulation Units
Marlborough H H Special Situations Income Units
JPMorgan New Europe Fund Accumulation Units
New Star Global Financials Accumulation
New Star Global Financials Accumulation
Old Mutual UK Select Mid Cap Accumulation Units
Close Finsbury Far East Equity Fund Sterling Class A Shares
Aberdeen Emerging Markets Accumulation Shares


PS - With the H&L ISA - As the intial charges are often 0%, can you easily switch funds if want to, maybe on a yearly basis?

dunstonh

If you are going to use past performance then use a longer period than 5 years. Go for 7 or 8 years so you include the last crash. Otherwise you are looking at mostly growth periods and past performance will generally favour the higher risk funds in that period rather than the lower risk or less volatile funds.

Comments on your list
1 - why M&G Global basics acc and inc units?
2 - You have chosen a very high risk spread. Are you happy with that degree of risk?

Some of those funds would make my list but if I was going high risk like that, I would spread it even further across the areas.

stphnstevey

Fair point about length of time assess growth - simply used H&L website which only had 5yr figures

I understand high risk - I currently invest in property, which can also be regarded as high risk, these funds have consistently performed well 'suggesting' they might not be as volatile as there sector might suggest, risk is simply perception - any fund can go up or down - why take the same risk on a poorer performing fund.

Can I afford to lose my total investment? - Yes, although losing my 'total' investment is highly unlikely. Can I afford to ride out a drop in fund price?, as funds generally recover from a dip over time then - Yes.

jamesd

Yes, you can easily switch when the initial discount is all of the initial cost.

If equally weighted, that's a higher risk selection than I have and I was aiming for greater than 9 out of 10 risk level. So, expect lots of volatility. No problem since you do expect it.

dunstonh

these funds have consistently performed well 'suggesting' they might not be as volatile as there sector might suggest, risk is simply perception - any fund can go up or down - why take the same risk on a poorer performing fund.

If you have only looked at 5 years, you would get that perception. If you include 7-8 years and the period of the last crash you would get a different view.

The point of a lower risk and possibly lower performing fund is consistency. You also have to consider that with some of these funds, it was right place at the right time and that sort of performance wont happen again. Others are cyclical. Take UK Equity Income; Liontrust First Income was a top UK equity income fund in the late 90s. Now its well down the list. It hasnt become a bad fund though. The way it was invested suited the period of the late 90s and not the 2000s. Had you used past performance then to pick your funds you would have that in your portfolio.

an I afford to lose my total investment? - Yes, although losing my 'total' investment is highly unlikely. Can I afford to ride out a drop in fund price?, as funds generally recover from a dip over time then - Yes.

People said the same of tech stocks. Those that waited now need around 900% growth just to get their money back. Do not underestimate risk.

If you are really going to go that high risk, then spread it wider and hold on tight.