Tracker funds that exclude UK

JohnRo

That goes without saying but despite the larger absolute number much of the S&P500 positive performance has hinged on the fortunes of just four (less than 1% of the companies in the index list), the FANG mega caps, the last couple of years or so.

To the extent that the S&P500 and the NASDAQ would have been in the red in 2015 without their stellar contribution.

AnotherJoe

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Well thats another thing that makes me think they might be oversold. I understand 70% of FTSE100 earnings come from outside the UK so perhaps investors are shunning it too much.
....

You are missing the point, you are looking at the FTSE as being "the UK economy" when actually what investors are shunning (if you believe they are) is just three sectors - oil, pharmaceuticals, and finance (plus the customer-killing company).

That is not the UK economy, those three sectors have a separate life with their share price movements pretty much independent of the UK economy.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

.......

I'm only paying 0.1% for the Vanguard FTSE100 ETF, with no stamp duty and low spreads. So I don't think I would save anything by buying individual shares. Especially when I just want to buy/sell part of it.

My point about buying separate shares is, would you for UK shares buy just Shell, HSBC, BP, British American Tobacco, Glaxo, Santander and Astra Zeneca ?

Because that there is 40% of the FTSE100!! If oil takes a hit, the FTSE falls.
Nothing to do with the "UK" being oversold, its to do with oil pricing.

Hence my point, if you wouldn't buy those 7 companies, why would you buy the FTSE100?

(And the fact your fund is cheap is an irrelevance if its something you wouldn't invest in)

Glen_Clark

AnotherJoe wrote: »

You are missing the point, you are looking at the FTSE as being "the UK economy" when actually what investors are shunning (if you believe they are) is just three sectors - oil, pharmaceuticals, and finance (plus the customer-killing company).

That is not the UK economy, those three sectors have a separate life with their share price movements pretty much independent of the UK economy.



My point about buying separate shares is, would you for UK shares buy just Shell, HSBC, BP, British American Tobacco, Glaxo, Santander and Astra Zeneca ?

Because that there is 40% of the FTSE100!! If oil takes a hit, the FTSE falls.
Nothing to do with the "UK" being oversold, its to do with oil pricing.

Hence my point, if you wouldn't buy those 7 companies, why would you buy the FTSE100?

(And the fact your fund is cheap is an irrelevance if its something you wouldn't invest in)

I'm more concerned about BAE selling Arms to Saudi Arabia than BAT selling Tobacco. People have had enough warnings, if they choose to keep smoking regardless you won't stop them by not investing in BAT. They would get it illegally like they do with Cannabis etc which leads to all sorts of crime. But thats beside the point.
I take your point that FTSE100 is a bit unbalanced. But those sectors look as good as the others to me, and I wouldn't like to sell them just because they are out of favour at the moment. The might recover as soon as I have sold them

AnotherJoe

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I take your point that FTSE100 is a bit unbalanced. But those sectors look as good as the others to me, and I wouldn't like to sell them just because they are out of favour at the moment. The might recover as soon as I have sold them

Then I go back to my point that if you like those, you'd be better off buying those 7 shares directly rather than dilute them with another 93 companies.

Glen_Clark

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Then I go back to my point that if you like those, you'd be better off buying those 7 shares directly rather than dilute them with another 93 companies.

But that would lose the other 60% making it a lot more unbalanced.
Any buying shares is more expensive than buying ETFs. Just the stamp duty is over 5 years ETF expenses. Then if you have got to buy/sell a bit of each to keep your allocations, instead of just one ETF...

bowlhead99

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Any buying shares is more expensive than buying ETFs. Just the stamp duty is over 5 years ETF expenses. Then if you have got to buy/sell a bit of each to keep your allocations, instead of just one ETF...

Well, you don't *have* to buy sell a bit of each share to keep allocations, you could just accept the naff allocations, like the ETF does (which doesn't rebalance internally its major holdings).

Horses for courses etc.

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Well, you don't *have* to buy sell a bit of each share to keep allocations, you could just accept the naff allocations, like the ETF does (which doesn't rebalance internally its major holdings).

Horses for courses etc.

Well I used to do that, until I had a few disasters like Tesco and BHP Billiton that proved I don't have the magic touch. But I was still slightly ahead of the FTSE100 so put what was left of my UK shares into FTSE100 ETF before I lost any more on UK shares. I've only 12% in the FTSE 100 ETF. At least I could sell that without CGT if I needed the money in a hurry.