Jupiter India in freefall

Malthusian

phillsmit3 wrote: »

I sold mine, couldn't just watch it drop. Will keep my eye on it and might be tempted back in if it starts gaining again.

So you can make another loss when it falls again? Which it will. What will have changed the next time?

Jonbvn

phillsmit3 wrote: »

I sold mine, couldn't just watch it drop. Will keep my eye on it and might be tempted back in if it starts gaining again.

LOL. If only we could time the market as you describe. We would be rich as Croesus;)

bassking

The US has started to raise interest rates and is resulting in money flowing out of the emerging markets (look at the chaos in Turkey, Argentina, SA etc) and back to the perceived safety of the US dollar. Only going to get worse in my opinion.

aroominyork

bassking wrote: »

The US has started to raise interest rates and is resulting in money flowing out of the emerging markets (look at the chaos in Turkey, Argentina, SA etc) and back to the perceived safety of the US dollar. Only going to get worse in my opinion.

Maybe, but here’s a different perspective https://www.capitalgroup.com/europe/capitalideas/article/what-next-emerging-markets-debt.html.

phillsmit3

Yeah good point. I know you're not meant to try and guess the market but I couldn't just watch it going down. I am not trying to get rich, just limit my losses. By selling them about 3 weeks ago I have managed to reduce my losses by quite a bit. Knowing my luck they will probably bounce back in about a week's time. But realistically I do not think they are going to bounce back any time soon.

If someone was actively managing a portfolio and an individual share was doing this badly for fundamental reasons I'm sure many people would adjust their portfolio.

And I also realise fund managers know an awful lot more than I do. But the fund manager of Jupiter India can't start buying China technology shares or USA small company shares in his India portfolio.

bowlhead99

masonic wrote: »

EJS_Superted wrote: »

According to the documentation Jupiter India and Baille Gifford Greater China are both 6/7 on the risk profile. The Legg Mason IF Japan is 7/7. I'm not sure how much I trust those scores but I don't know what else you can go off. I know from my Jupiter India experience i'll be staying away from any 7's, 6's are exciting enough for me!

It would probably be preferable to use a volatility measure, such as the FE Riskgrade you can obtain on Trustnet. The fund provider will band funds according to qualitative measures, but may not make any distinction between a riskier and safer fund in the same sector.

The fund provider doesn't use qualitative measures in deciding if something is 5,6,7 etc; what you see on the KID is a quantitative measure using actual data (with various assumptions if the product hasn't been running long enough) and how they calculate it is set out in regulation. If they end up with annualised volatility of 30-80% they can go in category 6, if higher then 7. If you had a really benign period of surprisingly low volatility within the actual data over the full review period it could push the category lower.

The FE risk score as you see on Trustnet is also a purely quantitative measure and works over a relatively short period but giving higher weight to more recent data so that older spikes of volatility have gradually less of an effect.

The FE score is however a 'relative' measure in that it scales so that the FTSE100 gets a score of 100. So if the markets are turbulent and FTSE100 is all over the place, another fund that is also all over the place will not get a massive high score just for being all over the place. A fund with high volatility all the time will get a lower score in periods where the FTSE has high volatility while getting a higher one in periods where the FTSE is pretty docile (ie the fund in question seems significantly more volatile than the FTSE at that point based on recent observed data)

The 1 to 7 score is obviously a less granular measure and you are right that funds operating quite differently with different potential outcomes can end up in the same bucket as there are simply not many buckets and some of them are quite wide, so that two funds might happen to be at the opposite ends of a particular volatility band over five years, but do technically qualify for that same band, and then in the next five years it's very different.



Similarly a particular Japan fund might just sneak into a 7 while an India or China fund happened to be a 6 (at the time of your investment) yet when you make an investment in India or China based on preferring something that sounds like less extreme risk, you end up losing more money when the wind changes.

Neither the KID summary risk indicator or the FE risk score is a predictor of 'what you might get over the next x years'. It's an illustration of what you would have got if you were investing over the last x years while the data samples were taken. Also, a high level of volatility isn't the only way to lose money. A terrible fund very reliably losing you 5% every year forever would have a modest risk score, while a fund zig zagging up and down from week to week would have a high score but perhaps produce much better results as you rebalance in and out of it every six months.

Something like a specialist India fund is definitely not one that will reliably give you a 5% loss every year or a 5% gain every year, the changes in its fortunes can be dramatic. Whether you feel it should be 6 or 7 on a scale, you know the short term results may surprise in either direction if you look at what it recently did and assume it will do that again next. It's the sort of thing you only put a bit of your wealth in, unless you're genuinely unconcerned about whether your wealth might drop a lot and stay dropped for a long time.

masonic

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The fund provider doesn't use qualitative measures in deciding if something is 5,6,7 etc; what you see on the KID is a quantitative measure using actual data (with various assumptions if the product hasn't been running long enough) and how they calculate it is set out in regulation. If they end up with annualised volatility of 30-80% they can go in category 6, if higher then 7. If you had a really benign period of surprisingly low volatility within the actual data over the full review period it could push the category lower.

Hmm, I was under the impression those regulatory risk bands were based on the sectors in which the fund invested and whether it's exposed to certain risks (e.g. currency), rather than its performance and volatility. Perhaps I'd just assumed that due to lack of variability between funds in the same sector. If 30-80% annualised volatility puts a fund in a single category, I can see why.

aroominyork

There is more useful stuff on KIDs in this thread, including graphics https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5740841/kiids&highlight=

bassking

aroominyork wrote: »

Maybe, but here’s a different perspective ].

An interesting read and she backs up her argument with data. I guess I'm more of a glass half empty kind of guy! That almost 1 trillion worth of dollar denominated debt would still worry me though. I'm just wary of the markets in general at the moment.

aroominyork

bassking wrote: »

An interesting read and she backs up her argument with data. I guess I'm more of a glass half empty kind of guy! That almost 1 trillion worth of dollar denominated debt would still worry me though.

And plenty of professionals can provided data saying something else. You can always find professional views/data to back up your hunch or preferred investment strategy. If you want a situation that leaves minimal scope for self-flagellation if things go wrong, decide on your equity/bond asset allocation, decide on global cap or UK-overweight (eg VLS), and stick to an index fund.