Woodford Equity Income

cogito

aroominyork wrote: »

I was talking about Smithson.

The average market cap of the companies in SSON is $7.5bn. There are plenty of FTSE100 companies with smaller caps than that.

cogito

bostonerimus wrote: »

So that would preclude a holistic approach to rebalancing and asset allocation. There are arguments for just leaving everything alone and that's what I do, but in some circumstances the level of short term volatility or asset allocation creep that comes with that approach might not be desirable.

Not necessarily but it doesn't make sense to me to take profits from your winners and hang on to your losers in the hope that they'll recover.

Prism

cogito wrote: »

The average market cap of the companies in SSON is $7.5bn. There are plenty of FTSE100 companies with smaller caps than that.

Yup, about half of the FTSE 100 is mid cap under some definitions

aroominyork

cogito wrote: »

Not necessarily but it doesn't make sense to me to take profits from your winners and hang on to your losers in the hope that they'll recover.

Putting aside that boston is invested in three index funds so there is less need to rebalance than for those of us with more varied portfolios, if you do not see the sense in taking profits and investing them in your underperformers I suggest you read up about rebalancing, eg bowlhead's opening post here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5208032/the-power-of-the-rebalance&highlight=

bostonerimus

cogito wrote: »

Not necessarily but it doesn't make sense to me to take profits from your winners and hang on to your losers in the hope that they'll recover.

Momentum investing is a well worn strategy, but you run the risk of waiting until your winners become losers before you sell.

talexuser

To sell Woodford is the (only slightly) difficult decision, but if you actually believe in him now might be the contrarian time to buy! I sold out at 30% up, buying in at 109 might be time for a rebound, if I was brave (which I'm not).

Edit:
today'e news is Purplebricks founder has stepped down, they are pulling out of Australia, and scaling back in US. And Schroders is backing the existing Provident directors against Woodford's prefered NSF. Maybe not yet the time to be brave

Johnnyboy11

talexuser wrote: »

To sell Woodford is the (only slightly) difficult decision, but if you actually believe in him now might be the contrarian time to buy! I sold out at 30% up, buying in at 109 might be time for a rebound, if I was brave (which I'm not).

Edit:
today'e news is Purplebricks founder has stepped down, they are pulling out of Australia, and scaling back in US. And Schroders is backing the existing Provident directors against Woodford's prefered NSF. Maybe not yet the time to be brave

Another 1.6% burned yesterday, cigarettes and drugs by the looks of things. Now 107.6 and falling 10% year on year, quite an achievement for our star fund manager.

https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/l/lf-woodford-equity-income-accumulation

AnotherJoe

cogito wrote: »

Not necessarily but it doesn't make sense to me to take profits from your winners and hang on to your losers in the hope that they'll recover.

I think there's a difference between "stock picking" investment and broader based investment at the level of global geographies or asset types. With the former I agree, it makes no sense (for sake of argument) to sell your Apple shares and buy IBM because Apple went up and IBM went down, or sell Fundsnith and buy Woodford.

OTOH it does if you are invested across broad geographies and / or sectors say EM, small companies, Europe, North America, or tech, mining finance etc. I am starting to think theres more sense balancing across asset types than geographies but haven't looked into it and maybe am too far gone to change now. But if I was starting again I think thats what I'd do.
And talk about Holy Thread Drift Batman !

cogito

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I think there's a difference between "stock picking" investment and broader based investment at the level of global geographies or asset types. With the former I agree, it makes no sense (for sake of argument) to sell your Apple shares and buy IBM because Apple went up and IBM went down, or sell Fundsnith and buy Woodford.

OTOH it does if you are invested across broad geographies and / or sectors say EM, small companies, Europe, North America, or tech, mining finance etc. I am starting to think theres more sense balancing across asset types than geographies but haven't looked into it and maybe am too far gone to change now. But if I was starting again I think thats what I'd do.
And talk about Holy Thread Drift Batman !

Indeed, Robin.

You make a good point about looking at asset types rather than geographies. For example, I don't want to invest in banks or extraction industries for example but try to find an Asia or EM fund that doesn't include them. It makes more sense to me to invest in the best companies in the world regardless of which stock market they are listed on. After all, you can get EM exposure from Unilever, Diageo and many other businesses without having to worry too much about corporate governance.

AnotherJoe

I've just had a quick look but must be using the wrong term. "Asset classes" for example gets equities, bonds, cash and so on. Anyone know what the term would be for different types of companies, eg tech, comms, healthcare, mining, finance and so on? And where I'd find categories and perhaps lists of funds, ETFs etc
As someone pointed out the other day it's hard to actually invest in a geography, for example if Switzerland was the place you wanted pick nestle and get a global company, for t U.K. pick Unliver or BP and get global. Even for the US the really big giants like Apple facebook Exxon whoever will have a very large global component.which means that these days perhaps much more than 20 or more years ago US and Europe and EM had much more distinction than now when everything is becoming equally globalised especially as helped by the Internet.