JPM Natural Resources Fund - Why dropping like a stone?

srcandas

Interesting if you look at:

JPM Natural Resources A Acc
First State Global Resources A GBP Acc
Oceanic Australian Natural Resources GBP

despite differences in portfolios the performance over 5 years is like they are glued together. Oceanic may have slightly bigger ups and downs but nothing of great long term interest.

Perhaps it shows that with 70+ investments you are always going to be close to sector average.

sabretoothtigger

gozomark wrote: »

without knowing the benchmark of the fund, its impossible to tell if he likes the shares you mentioned or not.

Might as well buy a tracker if he has no choice. BHP is in the asia pacific tracker

Linton

srcandas wrote: »

Interesting if you look at:

JPM Natural Resources A Acc
First State Global Resources A GBP Acc
Oceanic Australian Natural Resources GBP

despite differences in portfolios the performance over 5 years is like they are glued together. Oceanic may have slightly bigger ups and downs but nothing of great long term interest.

Perhaps it shows that with 70+ investments you are always going to be close to sector average.

Over 5 years the JPM fund return was 9% below that for the other two. If you look at the individual year by year performance they are fairly different.

For 5 years:
JPMNR: -53.1/111.6/28.6/-19.0/-22.2
FSGR: -45.6/88.0/24.1/-18.0/-14.0
OANR:-58.1/137.0/42.0/-25.0/-14.6

It looks like the FS fund is the best being significantly less volatile than the other two.

But the broad ups and downs are in line. But whether they are corresponding to sector average is more doubtful as they invest in different things to some extent, so there is no clearly defined sector here. Possibly like other markets at the moment they are driven by global events more than geographic and sector specifics.

gozomark

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Might as well buy a tracker if he has no choice. BHP is in the asia pacific tracker

if BHP is 15% of the funds benchmark index and he has 10%, all else being equal, he doesn't like BHP on a relative basis. If its 5% he does.

gozomark

Linton wrote: »

It looks like the FS fund is the best being significantly less volatile than the other two.

in which case you could hold either of the other two instead, but only have to invest, say, 90% of your capital. I'm not sure in this context if least volatile is best.

Most of the volatility (versus cash) in a fund benchmarked against a very high volatility benchmark will come from the benchmark.

sabretoothtigger

gozomark wrote: »

if BHP is 15% of the funds benchmark index and he has 10%, all else being equal, he doesn't like BHP on a relative basis. If its 5% he does.

I agree with checking all the data, but [strike]
BHP wont be 10% on an index unless we are talking Australia something very specific[/strike]


This fund holds 10% bhp too
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=IAF&region=USA&culture=en-us

[strike]I think its fair to say he is bullish on BHP when he has the whole world not just down under[/strike]

Does show quite high PE now


http://www.firststate.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CFSGAM/pdffundfactsheets/GB0033737874_First%20State%20Global%20Resources%20Fund%20A%20GBP_en_gb.pdf

First State Investments originate from Australia and are part of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. They manage £99.2 billion globally.

I did not know that, could explain the bias

Gozo is quite right, better to check for yourself then just say 'I reckon' This is the right document I think

Benchmark 75% hSBC Global Mining & 25% MSCI AC World Energy Indices

http://www.fundslibrary.co.uk/fundslibrary.dataretrieval/Documents.aspx?type=packet_fund_doc_reports_and_accounts&user=hl_web_test&sedol=3373787

Fund Size As at 31/07/12: £637.5 million As at 31/07/11: £1,019.3 million

:eek:

gozomark

10% could well be the legal max in any one holding

sabretoothtigger

Yes, I have one fund that held 17% Apple but I know 10% is a limit sometimes

ITs a women who runs this fund so Im wrong already. In 2011 they held 7.9% BHP which apparently is 'underweight', Im amazed

the fund’s underweight
holding in BHP Billiton (UK: Diversified) contributed to relative
performance as it underperformed following a shift in investor
sentiment away from BhP Billiton towards Rio tinto. BhP’s lack
of a clear growth strategy weighed against them

I sold BHP after QE2 and bought it back around the usa debt downgrade


HSBC Global Mining index

I have 1.39 % BHP in my portfolio

Globally, BHP shows 2.9% here
BBC Global 30 Index

gozomark

I used to manage one pension fund where one company represented 20% of the benchmark, but had a legal 10% max per holding (this was a US registered fund)

kar999

Overall it's been falling like a stone for the last 2 years.

After a newspaper tip somewhere about Gold mining shares eventually catching up with price of gold, and it being in HL Wealth 150 (and still is to this day!!) I decided to drip feed this fund 3 x £50 from April 2011 into my S&S ISA.

It was the worst investment choice I made as it has fallen ever since -36% & losing over a third of my outlay.

http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/j/jpm-natural-resources-accumulation/charts

Now, while it's cheap, might be a good time to invest but they said the same in 2011 !!

Fortunately I stopped the rot after 3 months investing and switched to another newspaper tip Standard Life UK Equity Unconstrained which was the best performing fund in 2012 at +44.6%

http://www.ftadviser.com/2013/01/02/investments/equities/standard-life-fund-crowned-top-performer-in-yQIRXIGMOwPrFSzlj9eNbJ/article.html

The moral is dont always believe what you read (or Wealth 150 funds) and volatile funds can be a dog or a golden goose!!