Portfolio Review

mobro123

cashbackproblems wrote: »

L+G have an international index tracker

I did look at this but if you look at the top 10 holdings around 8/10 are the same as the US tracker. If I have UK, US and Japan trackers I get a wider mix of companies included in the funds.

mobro123

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Brexit.
If the UK economy does well then that means the global economy is doing well also, so global equities will do well, probably slightly dampened by a higher pound but a high pound will depress some U.K. shares, so its a wash most likely.
OTOH if Brexit is a bust, it's double whammy pound falls U.K. shares (mostly) fall global shares rise due to falling pound.
It's also inherently higher risk, one country (to an extent) rather than the global economy.

I see your point but the companies in the Blackrock tracker are global (HSBS, Shell etc). I am optimistic about Brexit. Everyone thought it would be a nightmare but my funds have increased in value at a faster rate in the year or so post brexit when compared to the year before. Even if Brexit is a nightmare it won't last for ever. I am happy to weather the storm as I'm investing for the long haul. I take your point about the risk of investing in just one country but if you consider this with my exposure to the US, Japan, Emerging markets, small caps and property plus the globally targeted return fund I think I have most bases covered.

30% on Woodfords fund isn't especially impressive over 3 years as a metric (fair point about defensive approach though) because most of my funds are up 30% past year. Inherent growth and drop in Pound.

2016 was shocking for Woodford (3%) compared to average of around 16% or so. He isn't invested in oil or natural gas so missed out on the potential gains 2016 had to offer.

How do you determine that Fundsmith is "more expensive" than Woodford ? They are wholly different funds with different areas sector and geography wise, but in any case what makes a fund "expensive" ? Did you mean the management fee? (And Fundsmith is surely up much more than 30% in 3 years)

Yes sorry I meant management fee. I think Terry's fund is around 0.90% and doesn't offer platforms like HL discounts - have to respect him for not selling out or bowing down to HL and the likes but it makes the fund significantly more expensive when compared to Woodford - especially if you consider 30 years of cumulative growth. Fundsmith has done very well this year but I still like the long track record of Woodford. I know past performance isn't a reliable proxy for future returns but you have to consider his perfromance in the past 20+ years when considering what fund managers to go with. I want a mix of active and passive but because of the long investment timeline I am leading towards more passive funds due to the on going costs. Both Terry Smith and Neil Woodford are defensive equity investors so there are similarities in their styles although the funds are comprised of different sectors and Terry favours the US whereas Woodford is heavily invested in UK.

If you like pharma, why not just buy a pharma or healthcare fund? FWIW I have BIOG and WWH there are many others.

Might need to look into this more