Bankers vs Witan

bostonerimus

StellaN wrote: »

Regarding some of the other posts, I personally wouldn't hold Bankers and Witan in my portfolio because, although different, they are also similar in some ways. I can understand holding 2 global IT's that are totally different such as Bankers and SMT but for instance dividendhero holds 5 global funds (BNKR, WTAN, FRCL, HINT & MYI) which for me as too much crossover so I can't really see the point although the last two IT's from the equity income sector have higher yields. Any views or thoughts on this?

Keep it simple so you can easily and clearly implement your strategy.

ArchBair

StellaN wrote: »

Regarding some of the other posts, I personally wouldn't hold Bankers and Witan in my portfolio because, although different, they are also similar in some ways. I can understand holding 2 global IT's that are totally different such as Bankers and SMT but for instance dividendhero holds 5 global funds (BNKR, WTAN, FRCL, HINT & MYI) which for me as too much crossover so I can't really see the point although the last two IT's from the equity income sector have higher yields. Any views or thoughts on this?

I hold 3 Global IT's/Funds (Fundsmith, SMT & BNKR) and although some people prefer to hold just 1 global fund I would find it difficult to sell either of these three. This is mainly because I think they are very different in style both in region/sector and the amount of holdings in the portfolio.

Clearly, Fundsmith & SMT are very US orientated and are concentrated high conviction funds with a small amount of holdings. Whereas, BNKR is much more varied in both regions and sector and has a much larger portfolio of holdings so that is why I currently hold all three.

On the other hand, I too feel that five global IT's (BNKR,WTAN, FRCL, HINT & MYI), although different are not different enough to warrant holding all five.

MPN

bostonerimus wrote: »

Keep it simple so you can easily and clearly implement your strategy.

There seems to be in general two types of investor on the forum a) Keep it simple like you suggest with either a multi asset fund or a global tracker/etf together with holdings in bonds/gilts or b) Investors who like to create their own bespoke portfolio (active or passive funds) because they like doing the research and selecting their own funds or IT's. I realise that in certain cases their selection of funds only makes sense to themselves but each to their own etc.

dividendhero

Voyager2002 wrote: »

I think you would achieve the same effect by holding a global ETF -- and would pay less in management fees!

What you are doing is essentially paying the manager of one trust to decide to invest in company A rather than company B (sensible given the other holdings in the IT's portfolio) and then the manager of the next IT to invest in company B rather than company A.

I have no idea whether active management delivers any benefits, but it seems daft to pay for something in a way that guarantees that it cannot do so.

Believe me, I know the active vs passive inside out - have been investing for decades (yes I do have some passives too!!) All I can say is that for me my strategy has worked extremely well, so other than trimming down here and there I'm sticking with having a wide range of funds.

Even with a small passive portfolio I'd split. For example a simple £10 grand UK based portfolio I'd put £5000 each into say ISF and FTAL - one is a FTSE 100 and the other a FTSE All tracker

ffacoffipawb

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not surprising if you are top slicing winners to reinvest in laggards. In a bull market.

I am not selling, just reinvesting dividends, so not really top slicing?

Sally57

ArchBair wrote: »

I hold 3 Global IT's/Funds (Fundsmith, SMT & BNKR) and although some people prefer to hold just 1 global fund I would find it difficult to sell either of these three. This is mainly because I think they are very different in style both in region/sector and the amount of holdings in the portfolio.

Clearly, Fundsmith & SMT are very US orientated and are concentrated high conviction funds with a small amount of holdings. Whereas, BNKR is much more varied in both regions and sector and has a much larger portfolio of holdings so that is why I currently hold all three.

On the other hand, I too feel that five global IT's (BNKR,WTAN, FRCL, HINT & MYI), although different are not different enough to warrant holding all five.

I can't see anything unusual or wrong with holding a wide range of global IT's. I know there is the argument that when you are paying for active management you should leave it to one manager and one IT for each region/sector etc but surely if you want to spread your investment over 5 global IT's then what's so wrong with that?

Audaxer

Sally57 wrote: »

I can't see anything unusual or wrong with holding a wide range of global IT's. I know there is the argument that when you are paying for active management you should leave it to one manager and one IT for each region/sector etc but surely if you want to spread your investment over 5 global IT's then what's so wrong with that?

I agree its good to spread the risk a bit rather than leave it to one manager, but I suppose if you have too many global funds it would probably be better and cheaper having a global index fund instead. From what I understand if you are going for single sector funds, you would be better with one or two active funds in each sector so that different sectors peak at different times thereby smoothing out returns. I think that's the theory anyway.

ArchBair

Sally57 wrote: »

I can't see anything unusual or wrong with holding a wide range of global IT's. I know there is the argument that when you are paying for active management you should leave it to one manager and one IT for each region/sector etc but surely if you want to spread your investment over 5 global IT's then what's so wrong with that?

Agreed, I was just saying that for me personally 5 global IT's is too much for me. However, my brother who has been an investor for around 40 years breaks every type of rule in the book regarding investments and how to invest. He reads a lot and listens to all opinions and then selects whatever funds he feels is right for him. It may be all down to luck but he has done very well for himself over the years with his investments.

Sally57

ArchBair wrote: »

Agreed, I was just saying that for me personally 5 global IT's is too much for me. However, my brother who has been an investor for around 40 years breaks every type of rule in the book regarding investments and how to invest. He reads a lot and listens to all opinions and then selects whatever funds he feels is right for him. It may be all down to luck but he has done very well for himself over the years with his investments.

Well it just goes to show that there no hard rules but as you say your brother may have been lucky. However, I don't think so after such a long period of investing over 40 years.