Any recommendations for income and slight growth?

stringer_bell

bowlhead99 wrote: »

So just to clarify the goal is no longer "income and slight growth" as per post #1, or "focusing mainly on growth" as per post #17, but now "just go for growth"! Bit of an about turn

Generally most people want a bit of everything in a balanced portfolio. You mention the S&S is heavily bio/health - is that going to stay that way or get overtaken by your new "core growth" philosophy and just be a bit part on the side?

Of the 4 you mentioned that you were going to make just one your core holding. The only logical candidate is the Lindsell Train one IMHO. Deciding that the core of your strategy be a single sector or single market region, like UK mid cap companies or European companies or generalist smaller companies, seems inherently flawed as a "core". They are examples of skews to different sectors.

I like the Lindsell Train guys, and hold that fund in one of my portfolios. Their update reports/ factsheets for their funds and investment trust are usually quite well written and they've had decent success. They generally seem to follow their own rules and not go too off piste. A relatively concentrated portfolio would not be particularly safe in a downturn but the international aspect seems much more suitable for an objective of picking up global growth opportunities over the long term than simply buying a UK mid 250 tracker.

Indeed, I'm only 31, growth would make more sense, especially with current market situation and the fact I really don't need the money

Of course, I could split the 4 allocations to 25 each, but I have been doing a lot of reading online, and a lot of places tell people to make One aspect a core holding and build around it. Currently I have it equal splitting, but its still early days

I was going to keep the portfolio at 4, until I reach 10k plus, and then add another 4, for another 10k

So 2.5k in each, built up slowly over the course of weeks or months

Of course, there is always the issue of picking another 4 funds, whether it be japanese small cos etc and then missing out on the cheap prices when I initially topped up. I'm debating whether to just buy into them now

bowlhead99

I'm not sure I really follow. So in post 30 you listed 4 funds and said you were debating which one to make the core (and I suggested that of the 4, LT Global is the only one that makes sense). And you mention that lots of places tell you to make something a core holding and then build around it.

Sound advice. Some kind of core global holding in the middle with smaller holdings around the side as little satellites. Core and satellite, hub and spoke, whatever you wanna call it. A lot of people would have their core be multi-asset to reduce volatility, but if you want to forge ahead with a focused 100% equities global growth fund in the middle, it's your prerogative.

But now you say you are going to focus not on one core, but on four initial equal ones, and then four more equal ones, so you'll have eight satellites all floating around nothing. Is that your new plan, or an old plan that you want to get away from?

It is tempting when first starting out in investing to go pecking around like a magpie picking up all the shiny stuff you like the look of. Maybe that's how you got your heavy bio allocation and it's been good to you so you don't want to drop it.

But now you're starting again you have an opportunity to start with a clean slate and implement some of the tips on approach you've heard. Like getting a high quality core.

So, stick 60% of your £20k in the core and then add your eight funds around the side at 5% each (£1k each). Or stick £20k in the core and then start to branch out with your later purchases. I don't really see the logic in doing £2.5k in every fun-looking fund until you get to £20k and then going "oh yeah, I'd meant to do some sort of core/satellite approach, but forgot; ah well, I guess I'll just see how these go for a while..."

stringer_bell

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I'm not sure I really follow. So in post 30 you listed 4 funds and said you were debating which one to make the core (and I suggested that of the 4, LT Global is the only one that makes sense). And you mention that lots of places tell you to make something a core holding and then build around it.

Sound advice. Some kind of core global holding in the middle with smaller holdings around the side as little satellites. Core and satellite, hub and spoke, whatever you wanna call it. A lot of people would have their core be multi-asset to reduce volatility, but if you want to forge ahead with a focused 100% equities global growth fund in the middle, it's your prerogative.

But now you say you are going to focus not on one core, but on four initial equal ones, and then four more equal ones, so you'll have eight satellites all floating around nothing. Is that your new plan, or an old plan that you want to get away from?

It is tempting when first starting out in investing to go pecking around like a magpie picking up all the shiny stuff you like the look of. Maybe that's how you got your heavy bio allocation and it's been good to you so you don't want to drop it.

But now you're starting again you have an opportunity to start with a clean slate and implement some of the tips on approach you've heard. Like getting a high quality core.

So, stick 60% of your £20k in the core and then add your eight funds around the side at 5% each (£1k each). Or stick £20k in the core and then start to branch out with your later purchases. I don't really see the logic in doing £2.5k in every fun-looking fund until you get to £20k and then going "oh yeah, I'd meant to do some sort of core/satellite approach, but forgot; ah well, I guess I'll just see how these go for a while..."

You are quite right, it always takes an outside voice to make a person realise. I can be accused of being impulsive, and your right, being a semi beginner, one can be tempted to see shiny things and think ohhh

My train of thought was split the money by different sectors, when someone says diversify, I usually think different sectors. However, you mentioned multi-asset, which I never even thought about. I did see the vanguard funds though, but totally forgot about them

Perhaps I should research a bit more, again, thank you for your helpful advice

green_man

As an example, the FTSE 100 dropped about 30% during the 2008 GFC, 25% in 2002 following the dotcom debacle, and 15% after 9/11. How would you take another loss like this in 2016?

The FTSE100 is already down 20% from its 2015 peak, so a better time to buy now than when it was over 7000 a few months ago.

Thrugelmir

green_man wrote: »

The FTSE100 is already down 20% from its 2015 peak, so a better time to buy now than when it was over 7000 a few months ago.

I'd focus more on the yield offered by the index than the index itself. As the constituent companies change every quarter.