Global Investment Trusts

bowlhead99

dividendhero wrote: »

Why not? I've held both for ages and topping up on both....

Because there are literally hundreds of investments which could offer good prospects, but I am not going to invest in hundreds of products, so the vast majority of products that exist won't be products in which I invest.

I mentioned that I don't hold either of them because it is more important to form your own well-reasoned conclusions on what to hold than to buy something or not buy something on the basis that you heard such and such a person talking about it.

For example
- bowlhead99 was talking about Caledonian and implying it could be a better choice for some people than Bankers despite its lower ten-year return, so maybe he has a vested interest in me buying it so actually I should avoid it rather than be the sucker who helps hold up the price for him to exit...

- bowlhead99 was talking about Caledonian and mentioning some good things about it so he probably has it in his portfolio, and he is a smart cookie so I think I should buy it and attempt to copy his portfolio even though I don't really know what else he holds in what proportion and what his own objectives are...

In this case, I hold neither. Re my previous post, I do have some RIT in a couple of portfolios.

MPN

dividendhero wrote: »

Why not? I've held both for ages and topping up on both....

So how many global IT's do you hold in total? In a previous post you suggested Murray International, Henderson International & F&C - do you hold these as well?

What I can't seem to understand is that some people find it acceptable to hold a number of UK Equity Income IT's for the decent yields/income and also it now seems to appear the same with Global IT's? However, if you discuss funds/OEIC's then on quite a few threads people suggest it is best to stick to one or maybe 2 funds maximum in an individual sector/region so why is the logic so different between holding IT's and OEIC's?

AnotherJoe

I dont think they say its "best" I think they say its sufficient.

A couple of years ago i couldn't decide which of two funds to put money in, so in the end and to stop prevaricating i just split it 50/50. As it turned out they have tracked each other almost exactly so I needn't have bothered but it doesn't matter and at least doing that has stopped me having to check the one i didnt buy from time to time to compare.

MPN

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I dont think they say its "best" I think they say its sufficient.

A couple of years ago i couldn't decide which of two funds to put money in, so in the end and to stop prevaricating i just split it 50/50. As it turned out they have tracked each other almost exactly so I needn't have bothered but it doesn't matter and at least doing that has stopped me having to check the one i didnt buy from time to time to compare.

Agreed AJ, I think sufficient is the correct word.

I can understand your point about your two funds and although some people think it sufficient to only have one fund in each region I don't think it is a great worry to have two even though as you say in the end they tracked each other almost exactly.

I was mainly asking about the IT aspect because that's where people seem to have quite a number of different IT's in say the UK Equity Income sector and Global/Global Equity Income sector so that's why I asked about the logic behind holding so many IT's in a region as opposed to say a fund/OEIC?

Purely as an example, if I held 6 different UK Equity Income funds/OEIC's that would be classed as very excessive, however if you hold 6 different UK Equity Income IT's then this seems to be acceptable? The same applies to funds vs IT's in the Global sector.

ColdIron

MPN wrote: »

So how many global IT's do you hold in total? In a previous post you suggested Murray International, Henderson International & F&C - do you hold these as well?

What I can't seem to understand is that some people find it acceptable to hold a number of UK Equity Income IT's for the decent yields/income and also it now seems to appear the same with Global IT's? However, if you discuss funds/OEIC's then on quite a few threads people suggest it is best to stick to one or maybe 2 funds maximum in an individual sector/region so why is the logic so different between holding IT's and OEIC's?

For myself I have no problem with several Global investments whether UT or IT. I think many would say there isn't much point in holding more than one multi asset fund such as VLS or various world trackers as they are hugely diversified already and you either let trackers do their thing or you don't. I think the situation with managed funds and more concentrated portfolios is different. I also have MYI and HINT though I use them for income so they may be of limited use for you. MYI has a large slug of Asia Pac and Latin American equities (and even some fixed income in same) which isn't covered elsewhere for me and HINT is notable for having no UK exposure at all, handy if your income portfolio is already heavy in this area (maybe because of all those UK equity income funds )

But that's just me. Others might say you are paying a Fund Manager for their skills and should go with their higher conviction stock picking. It's all about opinion isn't it?

If I were to use a tracker such as Vanguard's all world high yield ETF (VHYL) I wouldn't mix it with much at all in the same portfolio

MPN

ColdIron wrote: »

For myself I have no problem with several Global investments whether UT or IT. I think many would say there isn't much point in holding more than one multi asset fund such as VLS or various world trackers as they are hugely diversified already and you either let trackers do their thing or you don't. I think the situation with managed funds and more concentrated portfolios is different. I also have MYI and HINT though I use them for income so they may be of limited use for you. MYI has a large slug of Asia Pac and Latin American equities (and even some fixed income in same) which isn't covered elsewhere for me and HINT is notable for having no UK exposure at all, handy if your income portfolio is already heavy in this area (maybe because of all those UK equity income funds )

But that's just me. Others might say you are paying a Fund Manager for their skills and should go with their higher conviction stock picking. It's all about opinion isn't it?

If I were to use a tracker such as Vanguard's all world high yield ETF (VHYL) I wouldn't mix it with much at all in the same portfolio

Thank you for sharing your thoughts/opinions on this. I also understand the point about not holding more than one multi asset fund or world tracker.

We have come to a decision on our Global IT's for our ISA allowance and will go with Witan and Bankers to run alongside Lindsell Train and Fundsmith in the global part of our total ISA portfolio. We are always wary about putting too much money into just a couple of funds in a region so we feel these four will be OK for us and they don't seem to have too much overlap.

Audaxer

MPN wrote: »

Agreed AJ, I think sufficient is the correct word.

I can understand your point about your two funds and although some people think it sufficient to only have one fund in each region I don't think it is a great worry to have two even though as you say in the end they tracked each other almost exactly.

I was mainly asking about the IT aspect because that's where people seem to have quite a number of different IT's in say the UK Equity Income sector and Global/Global Equity Income sector so that's why I asked about the logic behind holding so many IT's in a region as opposed to say a fund/OEIC?

Purely as an example, if I held 6 different UK Equity Income funds/OEIC's that would be classed as very excessive, however if you hold 6 different UK Equity Income IT's then this seems to be acceptable? The same applies to funds vs IT's in the Global sector.

I think for an income portfolio it is okay to have a number of different funds and/or ITs in the same sector, i.e. UK Equity Income as the UK generally seems to have higher yields on equity income funds than some other countries, although most portfolios would also include a few Global Equity Income funds as well. Even for the UK Equity Income funds, you can diversify by choosing some that concentrate on Large Cap equities and others on mostly Mid and Small Cap.

I also personally think that having a number of active funds in a sector you are not relying solely on one manager's (or management team's) judgement.

Sally57

ColdIron wrote: »

For myself I have no problem with several Global investments whether UT or IT. I think many would say there isn't much point in holding more than one multi asset fund such as VLS or various world trackers as they are hugely diversified already and you either let trackers do their thing or you don't. I think the situation with managed funds and more concentrated portfolios is different. I also have MYI and HINT though I use them for income so they may be of limited use for you. MYI has a large slug of Asia Pac and Latin American equities (and even some fixed income in same) which isn't covered elsewhere for me and HINT is notable for having no UK exposure at all, handy if your income portfolio is already heavy in this area (maybe because of all those UK equity income funds )

But that's just me. Others might say you are paying a Fund Manager for their skills and should go with their higher conviction stock picking. It's all about opinion isn't it?

If I were to use a tracker such as Vanguard's all world high yield ETF (VHYL) I wouldn't mix it with much at all in the same portfolio

I also don't really see any problem with holding several global investments whether UT or IT over my portfolio's. At the moment I hold four IT's and two OEIC funds in the global sector.

ArchBair

I'm new to the forum.I did consider global investment trusts but in the end I decided to stick with a few global funds mainly because of my lack of knowledge with IT's and also I feel they could be more volatile compared to funds. I hold three global funds which I consider to be diverse enough.

bigadaj

Audaxer wrote: »

I think for an income portfolio it is okay to have a number of different funds and/or ITs in the same sector, i.e. UK Equity Income as the UK generally seems to have higher yields on equity income funds than some other countries, although most portfolios would also include a few Global Equity Income funds as well. Even for the UK Equity Income funds, you can diversify by choosing some that concentrate on Large Cap equities and others on mostly Mid and Small Cap.

I also personally think that having a number of active funds in a sector you are not relying solely on one manager's (or management team's) judgement.

I don't believe the number of funds held is a particular issue either way, I probably have excessive numbers compared to what many might want, but review the overall structure and asset allocation to meet what I consider is reasonable.

U.K. Equity income can be a difficult area because so many income funds or trusts will naturally have a large concentration in a small number of dividend paying large caps, this should be less of a problem for global funds. No comoany is immune to problems and setbacks and in the recent past we've seen bp and several banks suffer, which might make up a large proportion of any uk equity income fund.