Investing for income?

brasso

Ryan_Futuristics wrote: »

Well to me that Fidelity fund still looks like a great way to invest in China - it's only 4 or 5 years old and it's given a positive return over that period where the index has given a negative

I haven't followed FCSS for a while but from what I recall the first couple of years were disappointing and Bolton seemed to admit in at least one or two high-profile interviews that he had relied too much on others for advice, and that this advice had not always been good. Not long after this there was talk of him taking a more back seat role.

Update: From what I've just read, he retired completely from the fund earlier this year. The fund had outperformed the market for the year prior but has done especially well since he left. How much of this is due to him being there / not being there, I've no idea.

Ryan_Futuristics

brasso wrote: »

I haven't followed FCSS for a while but from what I recall the first couple of years were disappointing and Bolton seemed to admit in at least one or two high-profile interviews that he had relied too much on others for advice, and that this advice had not always been good. Not long after this there was talk of him taking a more back seat role.

Update: From what I've just read, he retired completely from the fund earlier this year. The fund had outperformed the market for the year prior but has done especially well since he left. How much of this is due to him being there / not being there, I've no idea.

I'd imagine the performance it's had recently will still mostly be down to his stock selection - wouldn't expect more than a minor reshuffle since he left

I suppose there's always more pressure and expectation on a new fund with a top manager

People have chastised Mark Slater for this performance:

MFM Slater Growth (purple)
UK All Companies (orange)



Because in the middle bit it lagged the index for a few years ... Seems a bit overly critical to me!

colsten

Ryan_Futuristics wrote: »

MFM Slater Growth (purple)
UK All Companies (orange)

Wouldn't MFM Slater Growth be an ACC fund whilst UK All Companies ignores all dividends? I.e. apples and pears again?

But even if they weren't apples and pears - what guarantees are there they will perform in the same way going forward?

And why didn't you mention them before, or did you and I just didn't notice?

Ryan_Futuristics wrote: »

In the case of a well-run fund (Woodford, Lazard Emerging Mkts, Murray International, First State Pacific Leaders ..) they have large teams researching the markets, risk analysts, and decades of collective experience (and often managers with their own pensions in the funds they run)

How is the average investor to determine what a "well run" fund is?

Regarding decades of collective experience: Just look at the last financial crisis or the BP oil field disaster a few years back. What collective experience of the last few decades would have helped any of the highly paid managed fund professionals to avoid massive drops? No human being can see into the future. All market prices are based on what is already known. So any gamble on how the market prices will develop are just that - a gamble.

I am perfectly happy if you want to pay those professionals for gambling with your money, but I would rather stick with having the majority of my funds in the ups and down of market. And a bit of adrenalin with a tiny bit of pocket money in the lottery.

richyg

Ok,

Surely this is recency bias and just some graphs,if we are playing the game of who has the best 2 years performance. It means nothing.

How about a prediction for the next 3 years anyone ?. Lets revisit.
R

Ryan_Futuristics

colsten wrote: »

Wouldn't MFM Slater Growth be an ACC fund whilst UK All Companies ignores all dividends? I.e. apples and pears again?

But even if they weren't apples and pears - what guarantees are there they will perform in the same way going forward?

And why didn't you mention them before, or did you and I just didn't notice?

They're both being compared on the same terms - you can check for yourself here:
http://www.trustnet.com/Tools/Charting.aspx

I only mention that with regards to the typically short-term view everyday investors have on fund performance

It's actually very easy to find funds which outperform in the UK Smaller Companies sector - it's one of the strongest sectors for active managers ... I'd certainly recommend any of the Slater funds (but with a long-term horizon)

How is the average investor to determine what a "well run" fund is?

If you simply used any of Hargreaves Lansdown's Wealth 150 funds, the odds would be in your favour

http://www.hl.co.uk/news/investment-times/2014/11/150-ways-to-make-more-of-your-money

Or use Morningstar's Gold, Silver and Bronze ratings (my recommendation)

Regarding decades of collective experience: Just look at the last financial crisis or the BP oil field disaster a few years back. What collective experience of the last few decades would have helped any of the highly paid managed fund professionals to avoid massive drops? No human being can see into the future. All market prices are based on what is already known. So any gamble on how the market prices will develop are just that - a gamble.

I am perfectly happy if you want to pay those professionals for gambling with your money, but I would rather stick with having the majority of my funds in the ups and down of market. And a bit of adrenalin with a tiny bit of pocket money in the lottery.

Market prices are dictated by fear, greed and chaos more than anything ... Based on cyclically-adjusted P/E, it takes on average 10-15 years for a market's price to "correct" to its underlying value

There are two kinds of events in the markets: those you can see coming and those you can't

The oil disaster was impossible to see coming, however the current crash in oil prices was much easier - and this is why funds like Woodford's and Slater's are about 8% ahead of the FTSE All Share since June

The dot-com bubble was another one any good manager could see coming because the *market* was piling into tech stocks, and anyone looking at valuations could see it was a bubble (as they say: Sell when the market's greedy) ... Woodford's Invesco Perpetual High Income fund completely avoided tech stocks through the tech bubble

Aged

Learning lots here, thanks folks