Additional Global IT

AnotherJoe

bigadaj wrote: »

I think you are very naive to assume those numbers you quite are tax or subsidy free, they may well be US biased which would reduce the effect of fuel tax substantially, but not knowing the basis on which people are providing statistics is very poor, particularly in an area such as environment where the vast majority of research is biased one way or the other.

You couldn't be more wronger Those numbers are global, the sources are on the graphs and are various respected bodies like IEA and World Bank, not exactly a bunch of eco fanatic organizations, indeed quite a few in the "environmental community" shout that established bodies like this are in hock to “big oil / big coal” so no need to believe they have a bias towarsd non fossil, especially when looking at forecasts*. The figures must be excluding subsidies due to their global nature, unless you want to include things like government help towards manufacturing solar (not installing, which is different) but then again coal and oil get a shed load of subsidies so it likely balances.

* FWIW over the last 15 years, the organization with by far, by a long long way, the best record for predicting growth of solar compared to actual has been not the World Bank, not the IEA nor its USA equivalent, but Greenpeace !! IEA predictions (on whic many investment decisions are made) has actually been abysmal, downplaying how much solar has grown by 20-50% every year since the early 2000's. Its statistics on what has happened in the past have apparently (according to everything Ive read) been spot on, but as to what will happen in future, Oscar the Octopus would have done no worse.

Thrugelmir

Sue58 wrote: »

After much thought and research into the various holdings, I decided to add Bakers to my global portfolio alongside SMT and Witan. Bankers and Witan also have reasonable yields although I am mainly invested for growth. Personally, I don't feel there is anything wrong with holding three global IT's.

How large are your holdings?

Audaxer

Sue58 wrote: »

After much thought and research into the various holdings, I decided to add Bakers to my global portfolio alongside SMT and Witan. Bankers and Witan also have reasonable yields although I am mainly invested for growth. Personally, I don't feel there is anything wrong with holding three global IT's.

Well done, I'm sure there is nothing wrong with it - everyone has different opinions. Just wondering - is your portfolio all ITs or does it include funds as well, and is it 100% equities?

Sue58

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How large are your holdings?

Just over £500K.

Sue58

Audaxer wrote: »

Well done, I'm sure there is nothing wrong with it - everyone has different opinions. Just wondering - is your portfolio all ITs or does it include funds as well, and is it 100% equities?

At the moment it is 100 per cent equities but I have a good cash buffer. My portfolio is now about 70 per cent IT's, however, eventually I think it will be all IT's.

Thrugelmir

Sue58 wrote: »

Just over £500K.

I'd agree to diversification in that case. Though would widen beyond simply global trusts.

Caledonia offers an opportunity to buy into international stocks at a discount.

https://www.caledonia.com/

Sue58

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'd agree to diversification in that case. Though would widen beyond simply global trusts.

Caledonia offers an opportunity to buy into international stocks at a discount.

https://www.caledonia.com/

I do hold other geographical IT's so my overall portfolio is not purely concentrated on global trusts.

I did look at Caledonia as well as Brunner because of the discounts but in the end I settled on Bankers to go with SMT and Witan.

Audaxer

Sue58 wrote: »

At the moment it is 100 per cent equities but I have a good cash buffer. My portfolio is now about 70 per cent IT's, however, eventually I think it will be all IT's.

I would up until now have thought 100% equities were high risk, but in view of what people are saying about bonds, I'm now thinking with a good cash buffer maybe 100% equities is not such a bad idea.

bowlhead99

Audaxer wrote: »

I would up until now have thought 100% equities were high risk

They are. Assuming you're talking about funds - rather than individual companies which could go bust within a year - there's still 50% loss potential over a year or two, and maybe the recovery would be long and drawn out over the subsequent 5-10 years rather than bouncing back immediately.

, but in view of what people are saying about bonds

If you listen to enough people, 'they' will say pretty much anything about everything.

Alice_Holt

Audaxer wrote: »

I would up until now have thought 100% equities were high risk, but in view of what people are saying about bonds, I'm now thinking with a good cash buffer maybe 100% equities is not such a bad idea.

Yes, I too think Sue58's approach is sensible.
I'm using a cash buffer (in additional to emergency & short term cash funds) to help dampen down any future equity volatile. The advantage for me, is that I can then take a more aggressive equity fund selection; and am (hopefully) less likely to panic sell equities / bond funds when volatility does occur.
We shall see - I do think it's important to have an asset allocation / risk strategy you are comfortable with. And of course, that will be different for everyone (and will change over time according to life stage / events).