ZingPowZing v bowlhead challenge

JoeCrystal

Lokolo wrote: »

I feel as though ZingPowZing will win this if it is over the short term. But if we looked at years, I reckon bowlhead will easily come out on top.

Aren't investments meant to be longterm?

Good point Lokolo! Shall we check on this thread in five years time?

AnotherJoe

So, just for a laugh, and as a contrast with BH who has chosen a defensive fund, understandable due to the current "feeling" about where the markets are heading, I have a SIPP which is wholly passive, consists of 3 very similar global funds (all equities) and 1 property (8% ), I've noted the value now as of close business yesterday, and in a year will report back on the change in value prorated to £160k, I dont plan to take any money out of it and if i do that can be prorated as well. This should provide a background "control".

And because I can I'm going to pick four shares as well.
All ones I hold as its illogical it would be otherwise
INRG 513.25
SMT 518 .00
TSLA 18,107.12
SSON 1,230.00

Also a "BH has too much money and needs to get rid of it " special
50% each in
BUR 819.32
WPCT 44.15


And I'll pay £100 to a charity of my choice. Probably Cancer Research.


p.s. it occurred to me that maybe I'm "cheating" since although Ive picked "shares" three of the four are ITs and thus very similar to funds.
So if ZPZ's criteria for 4 shares means companies and not pooled investments here's one more selection, again, only companies I hold


TSLA 18,107.12
APPL 16,995.49
Orsted 8,271.30
Google 19,383.26
FWIW these arent necessarily the 4 single company shares I'd choose to hold but I dont have that many.

Thrugelmir

Lokolo wrote: »

Aren't investments meant to be longterm?

If both decrease in value over the period. No one should win.

JustAnotherSaver

Read page 1.

Can’t decide whether this is serious or nerd humour.

Strange if serious, unfunny if nerd humour.

Hmm.

AnotherJoe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If both decrease in value over the period. No one should win.

I disagree unless one of the criteria is that choice for a "fund" or "share" is also allowed to be cash, eg you are a proponent of market timing. Which to an extent i suppose you are if you choose a managed fund like BH did, its just that you are paying someone else to do the market timing for you. Had he chosen say VLS40 that would be different.

I have a friend who's sold 70% of his holdings over the past few weeks. He did this before 3 years ago just before Brexit and I reckon that cost him well into 6 figures then when he didnt profit from the Pound dropping. Lets see what happens this time. Maybe he's be right. I dont have enough faith I'll get the timing right so i just stay close to fully invested in my SIPPs and ISAs with a separate cash buffer.

barnstar2077

I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is here. I mean you could pick four funds and beat the multi asset fund, or you might not.

Isn't one of the main points of investing in a multi asset fund that contains shares in a lot of individual companies simply to avoid losing a large proportion of your money as you could if you were to invest in just four companies and one of them was destroyed by some internal financial scandal or the like?

AnotherJoe

barnstar2077 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is here. I mean you could pick four funds and beat the multi asset fund, or you might not.

Isn't one of the main points of investing in a multi asset fund that contains shares in a lot of individual companies simply to avoid losing a large proportion of your money as you could if you were to invest in just four companies and one of them was destroyed by some internal financial scandal or the like?

I agree, but it was ZPZ who suggested just 4 shares which brings in the random element you mention.

If you wanted to pick your own I'd suggest minimum 10 and better 20 for the reasons you mention, and 50% of those should be ITs or ETFs as well.

My strategy is a backbone of global pooled investments (ITs funds and ETFs) and direct shares plus pooled investments to emphasis particular areas (in my case, healthcare and sustainable energy). Plus the odd wildcard side bet.

Prism

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If both decrease in value over the period. No one should win.

There's nothing wrong wiith a decrease in value if you have lost less than equivalent other funds or benchmarks. In 2018 I was pretty happy with my less than 5% loss.

Thrugelmir

Prism wrote: »

There's nothing wrong wiith a decrease in value if you have lost less than equivalent other funds or benchmarks. In 2018 I was pretty happy with my less than 5% loss.

The first rule of investing is not to lose your capital.
The second rule is not to forget rule 1.

After 12 months you would incurred a 5% loss. Might as well have remained holding cash. Short term speculation isn't investing.

Prism

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The first rule of investing is not to lose your capital.
The second rule is not to forget rule 1.

After 12 months you would incurred a 5% loss. Might as well have remained holding cash. Short term speculation isn't investing.

Ah, I was assuming this was an example of year 1 of many years to come. You only lose the capital if you sell at the end of year 1 and never reinvest. If its a 1 year in isolation then I agree. Kind of proves how silly this example is