Global Tracker Funds

MPN

Please can anyone explain why there is such a difference between the performance fund tables with Citywire, Trustnet, Morningstar, Money Observer etc? For example if you look at the Global Equity or UK All Companies ovr the past 1, 3 & 5 years they all produce different fund table results? Who produces the most accurate data?

coastline

MPN wrote: »

Please can anyone explain why there is such a difference between the performance fund tables with Citywire, Trustnet, Morningstar, Money Observer etc? For example if you look at the Global Equity or UK All Companies ovr the past 1, 3 & 5 years they all produce different fund table results? Who produces the most accurate data?

I couldn't really say where the difference comes in but in the two links below the Moneyobserver shows a fee OCF which looks a possibility.?

http://www.moneyobserver.com/funds-in-fund-sector-Global

https://www.trustnet.com/ratings/?moreresult=true&Fr_sortedColumn=P60M,UnitNameFull%20%20%20%20&Fr_sortedDirection=DESC&%20%20Fr_Submit=tru%20%20e&univ=O&Fr_Sector=O:GLBLGRTH&Fr_Submit=true

Another link which shows 1 3 5 and 10 year performance and since launch..

https://www.fundstrategy.co.uk/fund-performance/

Again not an article about Global funds but a one which shows the annual returns of funds with a 20 year track record..
The MSCI World link is showing 10% annually since launch which was decades ago..
I've no idea how to pick winners but at the same time as posted on here if you are buying a tracker it needs to match its sector and it appears some don't..

https://www.trustnet.com/News/516510/the-flagship-funds-that-have-made-the-most-money-since-launch

https://www.trustnet.com/Tools/Charting.aspx?typeCode=NM990100

Linton

Possibly the performances are measured at slightly different dates. In the case of Morningstar, they dont seem to use the same classification as most other people, so the set of funds may differ.

DrSyn

MPN wrote: »

Please can anyone explain why there is such a difference between the performance fund tables with Citywire, Trustnet, Morningstar, Money Observer etc? For example if you look at the Global Equity or UK All Companies over the past 1, 3 & 5 years they all produce different fund table results? Who produces the most accurate data?

1. Trustnet, Money Observer and HL, fund performance data is provided by a company called (FE). All these companies are english.

2. Citywire funds data, is provided by a company called Lipper. While its investment trust data is supplied by Morningstar. The latter two are american companies.



It is not a matter of one being more accurate than another. As Linton suggests, the most likely reason is that performances are being measured between slightly different dates. Also the funds sectors are probably being classified differently in the UK and the USA.

In England the sectors are determined by the English Managers Investment Association (IA). I expect there is a USA equivalent.

If you look at the FE (English) sectors there are not the same as the Morningstar (USA) sector classification.

If you are in England it may be better to use performance data at
Trustnet or Money Observer as they use the english fund sector classification.

MPN

What if I spread my £15,240 ISA investment over 4 trackers putting £3810 into each to diversify rather than investing the full amount into 1 tracker and then see how they each perform over the years?
.
a) VLS100 (very high on UK at 24%)
b) VWRL or Fidelity Index World (World Index ETF or a Fund)
c) L&G International Index Trust (no UK but has emerging markets)
d) Vanguard FTSE Developed World Ex UK (no UK or emerging markets)

Linton

Having 4 funds all investing in much the same underlying shares isnt diversifying, its a waste of time and effort. You need to be investing in a broad range of different things.

For the amount of money you have, you could sensibly choose just one of those funds. Then over time add funds that invest in shares your chosen world tracker doesnt. For example EM, Far East, Small Companies. You can also consider funds that invest in areas other than shares - eg corporate bonds or property.

MPN

Linton wrote: »

Having 4 funds all investing in much the same underlying shares isnt diversifying, its a waste of time and effort.

Is that because you would expect the 4 funds to more or less perform the same? I suppose if I was to invest in only 1 fund then it would have to be a World Index ETF or fund (VWRL or Fidelity World index) to cover the whole market.

Linton

MPN wrote: »

Is that because you would expect the 4 funds to more or less perform the same? I suppose if I was to invest in only 1 fund then it would have to be a World Index ETF or fund (VWRL or Fidelity World index) to cover the whole market.

Yes, they will perform much the same because the funds will be investing pretty much in the same proportions in the same largest companies in the US, Europe, Japan, Australia ie apart from the countries where the scope differs.

Whilst your pot is relatively small the differences from not having everything will be pretty small. If you want to improve diversification it is better to cover the missing things with specific funds as you wont then be having to think about %s of %s. In my view every fund you hold should have a specific and unique purpose. That is especially true with trackers.

MPN

Linton wrote: »

Yes, they will perform much the same because the funds will be investing pretty much in the same proportions in the same largest companies in the US, Europe, Japan, Australia ie apart from the countries where the scope differs.

Whilst your pot is relatively small the differences from not having everything will be pretty small. If you want to improve diversification it is better to cover the missing things with specific funds as you wont then be having to think about %s of %s. In my view every fund you hold should have a specific and unique purpose. That is especially true with trackers.

So would a World Index Fund like the Fidelity one cover more or less the world market?

Linton

MPN wrote: »

So would a World Index Fund like the Fidelity one cover more or less the world market?

There are different indexes supplied by different companies with different criteria for inclusion. "World" never actually means everything in the world.

The Fidelity Index World Fund (that seems to be what they call it) follows the MSCI world index. This is actually an index of very large and moderately large (but not small) companies in the 23 countries which MSCI deem to be "developed". So it excludes for example India, most of China, South Korea, and Russia.

For detailed information including which counties a fund invests in see www.trustnet.co.uk