Fund analysis

roundabouthere

Just trying to get a few thoughts from you good people.

I have the following allocation within my ISA.

Aberdeen multi ethical. 3.6%
Liontrust special situations 4.5%
Liontrust uk smaller companies. 22.3%
Vanguard life strategy 100%. 24%
Baillie Gifford Pacific fund. 4.0%
HSBC shares. 7.6%
JPMorgan Eur Smaller comp 8.7%
Lindsell Train global equity. 25.3%

The long term aim is to supplement a retirement strategy where this bridges between retiring and drawing down on my pension fund. (Probably about 5 years)

The above is going to be invested for at least another 15 years.

foofi22

My thoughts (and I wouldn't call myself an expert!)

Ditch the HSBC shares
Over a fifth in UK small companies is 'ballsy' (for a total of about one-third in smaller companies)
Why the small and expensive ethical holding? Firstly 3.6% is a very small proportion and why include ethical anyway, as everything else is "unethical"?
Also, it seems (I haven't worked it out) very UK biased

Mike_FS

Can't offer much insight but curious how you arrived at the allocation, as I am deciding my own allocation at the moment with a similar timescale (mine perhaps slightly shorter e.g. 10-15 years).

Is your plan to "set and forget" or will you be adjusting the allocation?

Why have you picked a specific region like Pacific to add to the mix - do you think it might be underrepresented in the larger multi-asset funds like Lifestrategy or Lindsell Train? Why Paciifc rather than say China or Africa etc.?

Was the fund management charge a factor in your choices?

roundabouthere

Over the years I had a number of different ftse shares and over time most got sold off to buy into funds. I suppose I’ve never got around to selling off the final tranche of shares in HSBC. I seemed to have got attached to a share which is more dividend leaning than any growth potential. Probably time to kick them soon.

roundabouthere

Mike_FS wrote: »

Is your plan to "set and forget" or will you be adjusting the allocation?

I think there is an element of that which is why maybe it has become a bit ugly in places. I think some of the funds need stripping out. When I first started I bought a few random funds that have be performed ok but probably now stick out as either a repeat of something already covered in another fund or just look generally odd.

MarkBargain

foofi22 wrote: »

Why the small and expensive ethical holding? Firstly 3.6% is a very small proportion and why include ethical anyway, as everything else is "unethical"?

Does that fund have a 2% annual charge? There are much cheaper (and possibly better) ethical funds out there, some with a focus on positive investments to help people and the planet rather than just avoiding companies deemed unethical (e.g. tobacco or weapons).