Portfolio - One Year Performance (Tax Year End)

Prism

ivormonee wrote: »

You were very good with your asset allocations. I didn't realise that anything did as well as 40% over the year. I did not have any Japan mid caps in my portfolio or indeed small companies so the returns of my portfolio did not benefit from these sectors.

Its about 60% large caps, 25% mid, 10% small and 5% unlisted. I have been surprised over the years how little volatility there is in the small caps. They have barely been affected by the last three months. However, in full crash they would likely struggle. Thats when I am hoping that my defensive stuff like healthcare and Fundsmith will keep things from falling too far.

LHW99

I had several areas, particularly Europe (including property) and far east which did something better than 30%

bowlhead99

Prism wrote: »

Its about 60% large caps, 25% mid, 10% small and 5% unlisted. I have been surprised over the years how little volatility there is in the small caps.

As an observation on mid or generally smaller companies compared to larger ones: the MSCI World (developed world market-cap weighted index) did 13.36% in dollars from 29/3/17 to 29/3/18, while the MSCI World Mid-Cap Equally Weighted Index (USD) did 14.49% over the same time period.

On those figures, given sterling appreciated from $1.24 to $1.40 in the period (a 13.0% rise), you wouldn't expect to make hardly any profit in pounds on a developed world tracker - but you would if you'd used an ETF tracking the midcaps (I have the ishares one in my pension).

To be fair, the midcap one has a different country mix to the developed world index, because the ratio of aggregate size of US companies qualifying for the MSCI World Index to (say) Japanese companies in that index is about 6.5 ; whereas when you don't weight on size, the quantity of US companies qualifying as mid-cap to Japanese companies qualifying as mid-cap is much less than that 6.5x.

So the 'equal weight midcap' index (rebalanced to equal weight twice a year) will be relatively more Japan-heavy and more US-light than the world index which has over half your money in US. If the US currency has weakened compared to other currencies such as the yen and pound, you would expect a better return from the less US-centric portfolio mix regardless of whether we were talking smallcaps or largecaps.

ivormonee

bowlhead99 wrote: »

As an observation on mid or generally smaller companies compared to larger ones: the MSCI World (developed world market-cap weighted index) did 13.36% in dollars from 29/3/17 to 29/3/18, while the MSCI World Mid-Cap Equally Weighted Index (USD) did 14.49% over the same time period.

I have just had a look at these two indexes. They certainly do have a very different rgional spread; the former has 60% USA, 9% Japan, 6% UK as the top three geographies whereas the latter has 36% USA, 21% Japan and 7% UK.

The World Market Cap weighted index would have broken even on its USA constituent (a rise of around 12% in the USA stockmarket offset by an almost exact depreciation in the dollar versus sterling), and would have provided a return of around 7% on Japan and virtually nothing for the UK. On looking at the index data, the index returned 2.25% for the year to Feb 2018 (I can't find any figures for March 2018).

The mid cap equally weighted index, whilst suffering the same fate for its 36% USA constituent would have benefited from the higher Japan element. The Yen "only" depreciated by around 6% or so (about half that of the dollar) against GBP and that, combined with the greater weighting in the index will have yielded a greater overall return. Looking at the factsheet I can see that for the year to Feb 2018 (again, can't find anything for March) the return was 17.5%. Whilst this is more than the corresponding country specific indexes, the additional return would (I am guessing) have been derived from a relative outperformance of mid caps compared to their larger counterparts.

Obviously you had index return figures for the year to March available at your disposal including in dollar values, which you quoted in your post, so your figures are very useful.

Asset allocation once again is the key to a better return but that is easier said than done in hindsight. I was all large caps hence the poor return of my portfolio.

TBC15

To date poor at 10.3% the money-making machine may be slowing down a bit due to running flat out over the last 5yrs.

But who knows, it could seize completely or spring back into life.

On a more realistic look at things as the US has declared financial war on China we are in for interesting times ahead.

Heedtheadvice

Only skimmed through this thread bugs couple of thoughts......

One year is a short period for comparison purposes for what should be long term investments. You might beat the rest next year!

Did you also receive any dividend income or is that a total return you quote?

Linton

6/4/2017-5/4/2018

Growth: 6%
Income: 0.1%
Wealth Preservation:0.6%

For comparison:
VLS100:3.6%

TBC15

Linton wrote: »

6/4/2017-5/4/2018

Growth: 6%
Income: 0.1%
Wealth Preservation:0.6%

For comparison:
VLS100:3.6%

Interesting Trustnet give 1.8% as an annual return if you add it as a comparison. Yet it plots out as 3.6% ish on the graph. Any thoughts?

JohnRo

It'd be far more interesting to me to see how these figures are derived and whether they stand up to scrutiny.

I don't mind admitting I struggle to find a consistent methodology when new money and dividends are being added to existing holdings (and paid away) over a specified period.

My XIRR to date is + 8.30% over just less than 5 years, that says nothing explicit about the last 12 months though.

2017 CY capital growth was +11% (net)
2017 FY capital growth was + 2% (net)
2017 FY income growth was + 32% (largely as a result of new money in)

I think what I'll probably end up doing is a sheet in my spreadsheet with explicit calandar and financial year XIRR columns. That should take care of all the cash flows within each of the defined annual periods.

A_T

TBC15 wrote: »

Interesting Trustnet give 1.8% as an annual return if you add it as a comparison. Yet it plots out as 3.6% ish on the graph. Any thoughts?

HL say 1.75% for VLS100 from 05/04/17 to 05/04/18. Could be when the valuation was taken. Stocks rose yesterday and the pound fell vs the dollar.