Great British Invest off or Passive V Active Updates

Linton

Linton Growth £102039
Linton WP £98626

ams25

Ams25 active 60:40. 100556
Vls 60. 100214

Nothing in it!

finellah

Finellah 1.2
FinellahVLS80 0.0
Vanguard All Cap 0.3

A_T

A_T's British Bulldog Portfolio

100465.5

+0.46%

Prism

Prism global is 105,074

Thats what being overweight tech does for you sometimes. My tech tracker is down 8% for the month though luckily I have been decreasing its weighting since we started this.

Thrugelmir

Don't Let Your Granny Loose at the Dogs

£100,244.32 0.24%


Visible price weakening across the whole portfolio. Appears to be a change of wind direction.

ivormonee

bowlhead99 wrote: »

So someone recording a 4 month return from the first working day of October to 4 calendar months later, will get a performance about two and a half percent worse than recording a return from the last working day of September to the last working day of January.

I tend to favour last working day of preceding period to post-close of last working day of period under review.

I have discovered though that when looking at some online data sites, MorningStar being a good example, the data does not always seem correct. For example, I was looking at the Vanguard LifeStartegy (LS) funds at the weekend, hoping to get some annual performance figures and, for the Vanguard LS 100% Equity as an example, MorningStar (MS) stated an annual increase of 1.50% when looking at the year (as explained above, ending on close of play 29th March as Friday onwards through to Sunday 1st April were all non-market days).

When I then looked on a separate part of MS it stated the annual increase over the same period as 2.38%. And when I then again looked for the same data (still on MS) but used "1 Yr Anlsd % (ME)" as opposed to "1 Yr Anlsd %" (without the "(ME)" which I presumed might mean month end, I got a figure of 6.34% for exactly (as I understand it) the same period.

Depending on which screen I looked at it would state either figures to 29 March, 30 March or 31 March which, given that all those dates were non-business dates should have made no difference.

My point is that even looking at data sources that you would expect to rely on, and I would think MS falls within that category, there is conflicting information; there is a significant difference between 6.34%, 2.38% and 1.50% to describe the same performance of the same fund over the same time period.

Filo25

Always an interesting read, this thread.

Comparing my portfolio to various passive benchmarks, equities seem to be holding up pretty well thus far, not so much the case for my bond funds though!

Unfortunately started my portfolio after 29th September so can't really include the numbers here on a meaningful basis.

TBC15

Filo25 wrote: »

Always an interesting read, this thread.

Comparing my portfolio to various passive benchmarks, equities seem to be holding up pretty well thus far, not so much the case for my bond funds though!

Unfortunately started my portfolio after 29th September so can't really include the numbers here on a meaningful basis.

How retrospective would the numbers be?

TBC15

ivormonee wrote: »

I tend to favour last working day of preceding period to post-close of last working day of period under review.

I have discovered though that when looking at some online data sites, MorningStar being a good example, the data does not always seem correct. For example, I was looking at the Vanguard LifeStartegy (LS) funds at the weekend, hoping to get some annual performance figures and, for the Vanguard LS 100% Equity as an example, MorningStar (MS) stated an annual increase of 1.50% when looking at the year (as explained above, ending on close of play 29th March as Friday onwards through to Sunday 1st April were all non-market days).

When I then looked on a separate part of MS it stated the annual increase over the same period as 2.38%. And when I then again looked for the same data (still on MS) but used "1 Yr Anlsd % (ME)" as opposed to "1 Yr Anlsd %" (without the "(ME)" which I presumed might mean month end, I got a figure of 6.34% for exactly (as I understand it) the same period.

Depending on which screen I looked at it would state either figures to 29 March, 30 March or 31 March which, given that all those dates were non-business dates should have made no difference.

My point is that even looking at data sources that you would expect to rely on, and I would think MS falls within that category, there is conflicting information; there is a significant difference between 6.34%, 2.38% and 1.50% to describe the same performance of the same fund over the same time period.

For the purposes of this exercise we are using Trustnet, give or take a day.
It’s supposed to be fun and informative, not definitive.