Funds Income vs Accumulation - Is Income yield included in performance

Thrugelmir

Audaxer said:

RomfordNavy said:

Audaxer said:

Clearly the Growth fund has the greater returns. I am surprised by the difference in the amount of return over the 5 years.  I think the Equity Income fund is still a perfectly good fund if you are looking for income from natural yield.

Seems to me even if income is required that it would be better to buy the Growth fund and just sell-off the equivalent amount when required to provide the same income as the Income fund would have provided.

It would be better to buy the Growth fund if you knew for certain that it was going to do much better than the income funds for the following 5 years. But we don't know for certain what is going to happen in the next 5 years. The Growth fund grew by 40% last year, which is great if you invested at this time last year, but now may not be a great time to invest in it.

Benchmark was 22% last year.  An example of an active fund manager selecting the right holdings. 

aroominyork

Thrugelmir said:

aroominyork said:

PS. I've just looked at these Maitland funds and they mostly invest in small companies. That's a curious place to fish for dividend yield so it's not surprising the Growth fund has performed better.

Why is it curious to fish in the smaller companies sector for dividends. Not every company is a stellar growth story. There's some well run, unleveraged, cash generative companies amongst the smaller caps.

I was comparing the growth to the income fund but you make a fair point which had me look at Trustnet and saw the income fund ranked 2/84 among UK equity income funds over five years, so I stand corrected.

Thrugelmir

aroominyork said:

Thrugelmir said:

aroominyork said:

PS. I've just looked at these Maitland funds and they mostly invest in small companies. That's a curious place to fish for dividend yield so it's not surprising the Growth fund has performed better.

Why is it curious to fish in the smaller companies sector for dividends. Not every company is a stellar growth story. There's some well run, unleveraged, cash generative companies amongst the smaller caps.

I was comparing the growth to the income fund but you make a fair point which had me look at Trustnet and saw the income fund ranked 2/84 among UK equity income funds over five years, so I stand corrected.

Wasn't advocating this fund as such. More of a general observation. One of those areas if you've the got the time to research. There's value to be found as a small investor. 

aroominyork

Thrugelmir said:

aroominyork said:

Thrugelmir said:

aroominyork said:

PS. I've just looked at these Maitland funds and they mostly invest in small companies. That's a curious place to fish for dividend yield so it's not surprising the Growth fund has performed better.

Why is it curious to fish in the smaller companies sector for dividends. Not every company is a stellar growth story. There's some well run, unleveraged, cash generative companies amongst the smaller caps.

I was comparing the growth to the income fund but you make a fair point which had me look at Trustnet and saw the income fund ranked 2/84 among UK equity income funds over five years, so I stand corrected.

Wasn't advocating this fund as such. More of a general observation. One of those areas if you've the got the time to research. There's value to be found as a small investor. 

When you say "as a small investor" do you mean institutional investors would not look at a fund that only manages a few hundred million and might soft close if it grew much further, hence leaving it alone for DIY investors to invest in?