How To Own The world. New fund

Malthusian

I'd missed that they were going to be holding 24 funds, which is I think too much for most retail investors to hold. That said:

bowlhead99 wrote:

Of course, they would say the value is in knowing what to buy when and in what ratio mix and at what price and their investment thesis / strategy / rationale is probably more researched and well-informed than some of the DIY investors on here who slap together a portfolio of five to ten funds because they think they like the sound of each of them.

They probably would but on the other hand, bostonerimus' link (page 21) shows that after allocating 45% to equities, 30% to fixed income and 25% to "alternatives", the strategy is simply to pick a bunch of ETFs (mostly one per geographic region) and split the amount allocated equally between them.

So in the developed equity section it's 4% to each of Europe, Japan, Pacific, UK and US. Emerging equity similarly goes 5% to each of worldwide, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Fixed income is 6% to each of dollar-denominated bonds, euro bonds, sterling bonds, sterling high yield bonds and emerging market dollar bonds. And so on. There's nothing wrong with this approach, it just makes it difficult to claim that there's any kind of scientific strategy going on.

So ColdIron is absolutely right, you could very easily buy the same goods in a much cheaper basket. 0.9% per annum cheaper to be precise. While the 24 funds used is a lot to maintain yourself via Hargreaves Lansdown, the list could be trimmed to about a dozen without significantly increasing risk or reducing potential returns.

capital0ne

aajax42 wrote: »

But isn't what's in the basket the crucial issue here?

It's a basket case!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

capital0ne

ColdIron wrote: »

An OCF of 1.14% seems a lot for a basket of EFTs

Not entirely sure what EFTs are?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

capital0ne

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I take a very conservative approach, and don't like to be a guinea pig. For me the track record is all. Marketing bumf, such as a book, means nowt.

And they always warn you that past performance is not to be relied upon for future returns! :T:T:T:T

bostonerimus

Malthusian wrote: »

So in the developed equity section it's 4% to each of Europe, Japan, Pacific, UK and US. Emerging equity similarly goes 5% to each of worldwide, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Fixed income is 6% to each of dollar-denominated bonds, euro bonds, sterling bonds, sterling high yield bonds and emerging market dollar bonds. And so on. There's nothing wrong with this approach, it just makes it difficult to claim that there's any kind of scientific strategy going on.

They will be using "formula based trend following".

aajax42

One of the main thrusts of the book is to have a range of investments that will weather any financial situation. Given the trillions of debt/Q.E. etc, a portfolio that includes commodities, bonds, Gold etc, with a great deal of diversity may not give the best return in a bull market, but might be a godsend when the next collapse occurs. What other funds offer this degree of protection?

ColdIron

Personal Assets Trust might be worth a look

aajax42

ColdIron wrote: »

Personal Assets Trust might be worth a look

I like the fact it is defensive first and still maintaining a reasonable return. Thanks.

BLB53

What other funds offer this degree of protection?

I hold Capital Gearing...Spiller has a good track record over several decades and was one of the few not to have lost money during the 2008 crash.

I read the book and was not really impressed and would avoid the fund it promotes just on charges alone...L&G multi index funds charge 0.31% and will do a similar job.

bostonerimus

This is just another tree in a forest of investment funds. The only people guaranteed to do well out of it are the people running it. It might be good, it might not, but I know that at over 1% in fees I would never consider it whatever the sales pitch.........and "trend following" and other trading algorithms are just that, IMHO.