Lindsell train global equity

bowlhead99

arwain wrote: »

I've just been reading on the Monevator web site that the MSCI World ETF has produced an annualised growth rate of 12.1% over the last 10 years. Would be nice if this would continue for the next 10 years but who knows.

And for the one and a half year period ending six months before the Monevator review period started, you would see a loss of over 55%

Actually my figures are in dollars - you'll probably remember that the sterling version of the drop was less harsh because pounds weakened against the dollar over the period rather than strengthened.

Still, now we sit here with a weak pound, and it's not implausible that it could be our turn to have our currency strengthen while the global stock markets crash and 94.5% of the ETF's assets are in currencies other than sterling.

I think I would make a minor edit to your comment:

an annualised growth rate of 12.1% over the last 10 years. Would be nice if this would continue for the next 10 years but who [STRIKE]knows. [/STRIKE]are we kidding if we think that will seriously happen

quirkydeptless

TBC15 wrote: »

Let’s not forget LF Blue Whale, it’s also succumbed to gravity lately.

TBC15

quirkydeptless wrote: »

Penny drop response time 27hrs 56min

kinger101

Originally Posted by ruperts View Post
According to trustnet its performance over 3 years ranks it 1st out of 279. Over three months it's ranked 299th out of 330. Wonder how many people invested purely on the basis of the former and are now scratching their heads about the latter.

Sailtheworld wrote: »

All of them bar the two people who were actively seeking a fund with 40% in beverages and media.

The reality is;

(a) most people will have held for much longer than three months
(b) very few people are concerned about the returns over such a short period.
(c) there's no need to be worried about a high proportion in any one sector when it's part of a wider balanced portfolio. Holding it a sole investment would be foolhardy
(d) I suspect most people believe the fund managers might have some ability to do better than a tracker (otherwise, why pay the fees) but some reversion to the mean is inevitable.

kinger101

arwain wrote: »

I've just been reading on the Monevator web site that the MSCI World ETF has produced an annualised growth rate of 12.1% over the last 10 years. Would be nice if this would continue for the next 10 years but who knows.

Here are the details https://monevator.com/

It would be, as being a global index tracker, it would reflect solid performance of stock markets globally. But if you want such performance over the next decade, your best bet is investing in time travel.

iglad

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Yes they're well on the way to wiping out their gains at the moment

Hell I wish I had jumped onboard way back then as I'd just be basking in the glow of them gains however I only invested in April and saw some very good gains up till August of over 17% for both funds now it's down to 2.25%.

I'm in it for the long term.

iglad

bostonerimus wrote: »

Ahh, there's your problem, well at least in part. Carefully casting your money about, and then forgetting about it is often a good strategy.

Thats what they told the Woodford investors to do and we all know how that turned out!!

bostonerimus

I'd never own Fundsmith or Lindsell Train Equity myself as I don't like concentrated stock pickers, but we are light years, even parsecs, away form a Woodford situation. Both of those funds look for value for money listed companies, not the unlisted, difficult to shift gambles of Woodford. So while you might be getting in after some impressive gains, if you are in this for the long term ie more than 10 years I can see an argument for such funds if you like the philosophy. Just don't go buying the LT IT if you get the jitters with a bit of volatility. And don't go hog wild on them. If you want to invest successfully you must have a management strategy to survive high double digit percentage falls, so stop worrying about a few percent until you reach your rebalancing threshold... you have one I assume.

Sailtheworld

kinger101 wrote: »

The reality is;

(a) most people will have held for much longer than three months
(b) very few people are concerned about the returns over such a short period.
(c) there's no need to be worried about a high proportion in any one sector when it's part of a wider balanced portfolio. Holding it a sole investment would be foolhardy
(d) I suspect most people believe the fund managers might have some ability to do better than a tracker (otherwise, why pay the fees) but some reversion to the mean is inevitable.

Ref (c). The whole point of buying a fund with a sector concentration is because you think the fund manager is correct in their belief these sectors will out-perform the wider market over time or at least. It seems pointless and hellishly complicated to then try and reduce this concentration as part of a wider balanced portfolio. May as well just stick with a wider balanced portfolio in the first place.

Ref (d). People do believe that fund managers have an ability to do better than a tracker and, additionally, they're skilled enough to select these managers. Belief systems don't always match reality.

Prism

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Ref (c). The whole point of buying a fund with a sector concentration is because you think the fund manager is correct in their belief these sectors will out-perform the wider market over time or at least. It seems pointless and hellishly complicated to then try and reduce this concentration as part of a wider balanced portfolio. May as well just stick with a wider balanced portfolio in the first place.

I agree to a point and don't try and dilute a managed fund within its remit - in the case global companies based in developed markets. However there is still plenty of room for diversification into emerging/frontier markets, smaller companies, various types of bonds, cash, p2p, gold and property.