Can someone explain these performance figures on my shares

climbatron

Hi, I have been reviewing how my investments have done with HL following the Woodford incident, but I don't understand how these figures add up.

I purchased accumulation units in November 2013 and I've done nothing with them since then. It shows a 43% increase.

If I look at the performance figures for the fund, it shows

June 14- 15 15.16%
June 15 - 16 -2.36%
June 16 - 17 18.94%
June 17 - 18 8.38%
June 18 - 19 -6.85%

This doesn't add up to a 43% increase. Granted there is a period from Nov 13 - June 14 that isn't covered but I doubt it will make up such a massive difference.

Can anyone explain how the performance figures relate to the actual figure?

Thanks

AnotherJoe

Not having Nov 13-June 14 figures could make a massive difference.
You should be able to go back and look at what the individual investments did for that period.
When you say those numbers "don't add up to 43%" do you mean that literally ? You cant add up percentages to get the return, if that's what you literally mean.

fun4everyone

climbatron wrote: »

Hi, I have been reviewing how my investments have done with HL following the Woodford incident, but I don't understand how these figures add up.

I purchased accumulation units in November 2013 and I've done nothing with them since then. It shows a 43% increase.

If I look at the performance figures for the fund, it shows

June 14- 15 15.16%
June 15 - 16 -2.36%
June 16 - 17 18.94%
June 17 - 18 8.38%
June 18 - 19 -6.85%

This doesn't add up to a 43% increase. Granted there is a period from Nov 13 - June 14 that isn't covered but I doubt it will make up such a massive difference.

Can anyone explain how the performance figures relate to the actual figure?

Thanks

The figures show the percentage gain or loss for the fund in that time frame. They have divided the returns into 12 month periods, so for example June 2014 through to June 2015 it made 15.16%

You don't add the figures up, each year is listed as its own return but the effect on a fund left untouched over the whole time frame is that they are all compounded, you have to multiply them as percentages.

I did a manual calculation on what you posted without checking anything and I got a roughly 35% increase over the whole time frame of figures quoted. That fits completely in with what you said as the extra return to make it up to the 43% that you report is in the 2013-14 period.

climbatron

Thanks for the reply, I didn't expect them to literally add up, but what I'm trying to understand is

1) Has this fund performed well?
2) If I were to look at investing in another fund, how can I interpret the performance figures? Being able to equate fund performance figures to the actual returns I've seen would help me understand.

For 1) I guess a better measure would be to look at the total increase divided by the number of years invested to get a year on year average increase?

For 2) I understand past performance may not reflect future performance, but as an amateur what else is there to go off?

Thanks

fun4everyone

climbatron wrote: »

1) Has this fund performed well?

To answer this you have to compare it to a benchmark index or sector. Tell us what the fund is and we can help or look in the fund literature, they will usually state what the benchmark is in that.

climbatron

Hi fun4everyone - thanks for your explanation, I understand how you've got to the 35 figure so I've got a better understanding.

The fund is HSBC FTSE 250 INDEX INCLUSIVE - ACCUMULATION (GBP)

Thanks

fun4everyone

climbatron wrote: »

The fund is HSBC FTSE 250 INDEX INCLUSIVE - ACCUMULATION (GBP)

Thats a passive (tracker) fund so you have got the market return of the 250 index minus fees (which are small for the fund, ignoring HL's large platform fees).

Not going into if that is a good choice for you risk level, if that is an appropriate index to track or how it fits into your overall portfolio. However it's certainly not a bad way to invest in the UK market. It will have utterly smashed Woodford Equity Income out of the park.

climbatron

Thanks for the help. I appreciate this is a massive topic, but what I am doing is investing chunks of average 3k into a mix of tracker funds that I won't want to access for at least another 3-5 years (it's money for my kids to help them out when they are older).

Some of these have done better than others, this one is best example, whereas some others have barely made any profit all over 5 years.

Stick with it fingers crossed the markets pick up over the long term, or is there a better way? As you have probably guessed, I'm not Warren Buffett.

fun4everyone

climbatron wrote: »

Thanks for the help. I appreciate this is a massive topic, but what I am doing is investing chunks of average 3k into a mix of tracker funds that I won't want to access for at least another 3-5 years (it's money for my kids to help them out when they are older).

Some of these have done better than others, this one is best example, whereas some others have barely made any profit all over 5 years.

Stick with it fingers crossed the markets pick up over the long term, or is there a better way? As you have probably guessed, I'm not Warren Buffett.

You're doing a wise thing for your children. Perhaps, if you are not doing so already, you could look at doing it inside a JISA for them.

It might also be a good idea instead of picking a "mix of tracker funds" yourself to just use one global tracker fund that covers the whole world. It will take all the hard work and stress out of it for you. Vanguard, Blackrock, Fidelity, HSBC - they all have global tracker funds to choose from with various small differences.

5 years is the absolute minimum timeframe I would want though, and the more over that the better.

AnotherJoe

climbatron wrote: »

Hi fun4everyone - thanks for your explanation, I understand how you've got to the 35 figure so I've got a better understanding.

The fund is HSBC FTSE 250 INDEX INCLUSIVE - ACCUMULATION (GBP)

Thanks

Then to ask the question "did my fund do well" is completely the wrong question.


The fund is an index tracker. So, it does what the index does.

The index is the top 250 companies in the FTSE, after number 100, eg its companies 101-350.

So, forget the fund, its a distraction from what you've done which is invest in those 250 companies. I personally wouldnt invest in them, as its a hostage to fortune regards Brexit with a very high% UK allocation plus irrespective Brexit its to dependent upon the UK economy.
As another poster has said, if this is a long term investment (and 3-5 years is NOT a long term investment) I'd be picking a global fund covering the whole world rather than just one country or attempting to make up my own tracker by selecting a bunch of different trackers unless I had a real strong conviction that particular countries or sectors would do well. Do you? I suspect not so if I'm right hedge your bets across the world.

climbatron

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate you taking the time.