Squeaky bum time!

ffacoffipawb

Deleted_User said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Prism said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Looks like the sheep are selling off again!

Might as well have got Corbyn.

Did you change your allocation after the crash in February and March? You seemed to take a large hit last time so wondered if you felt better protected should it happen again.

No still the same, about 25% down from peak.

I dont know what I am doing, I guess, otherwise I would be a fund manager, so just left well alone, though I did switch from Aberdeen Asian Income Fund (AAIF) to Jupiter Income and Growth (JGGI) which has held up a bit better.

The least said about my holdings in Aberdeen Standard Equity Income and Temple Bar, the better.

I do wonder if I would have been better off using OEICS with higher platform charges, instead of ITs, in the end!

25% seems high, given that US stocks were back to pre-crisis peaks in August and bonds were up. Of course its possible that whatever you are doing will work out better in the long term. What is your asset and country allocation? 

Too much UK sadly, probably 75%.

[Deleted User]

Minus 22% for FTSE 100. Wow.  Yes, excessive home bias poses risks. Should all balance out in the long term assuming you can wait. 

[Deleted User]

My home market (Canada) is minus 4.6%, but I only have 15% of my equities in it. And I have 70% in equities, which is aggressive but bonds helped this year. 

ffacoffipawb

Deleted_User said:

Minus 22% for FTSE 100. Wow.  Yes, excessive home bias poses risks. Should all balance out in the long term assuming you can wait. 

Before I discovered investment trusts, I was 100 UK, FTSE100 shares like Centrica, British Airways (as was), Aviva etc. So it could have been a lot worse!!!

I don't envy the poor so-and-so's running a HYP like I used to. 

[Deleted User]

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

Minus 22% for FTSE 100. Wow.  Yes, excessive home bias poses risks. Should all balance out in the long term assuming you can wait. 

Before I discovered investment trusts, I was 100 UK, FTSE100 shares like Centrica, British Airways (as was), Aviva etc. So it could have been a lot worse!!!

I don't envy the poor so-and-so's running a HYP like I used to. 

I am not a fan of income funds. Reduces diversification, concentrates you in a small number of industries. I see no advantage in having larger dividends vs, for example, share buy backs. What really matters is future profitability, over the next few decades. And selling a few shares is just as easy as drawing dividends - if you need income. I do understand why it works for some people on a purely psychological level.

Having said all this, it all evens out in the long term as long as you are not too concentrated.

ffacoffipawb

Deleted_User said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

Minus 22% for FTSE 100. Wow.  Yes, excessive home bias poses risks. Should all balance out in the long term assuming you can wait. 

Before I discovered investment trusts, I was 100 UK, FTSE100 shares like Centrica, British Airways (as was), Aviva etc. So it could have been a lot worse!!!

I don't envy the poor so-and-so's running a HYP like I used to. 

I am not a fan of income funds. Reduces diversification, concentrates you in a small number of industries. I see no advantage in having larger dividends vs, for example, share buy backs. What really matters is future profitability, over the next few decades. And selling a few shares is just as easy as drawing dividends - if you need income. I do understand why it works for some people on a purely psychological level.

Having said all this, it all evens out in the long term as long as you are not too concentrated.

I see your point, but selling shares to get an income is not cost effective. It is cost effective for funds though. But yes, getting a dividend is psychologically pleasing.

Perhaps I should ditch these IT's from my pension and build a better OEIC portfolio.

Prism

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

Minus 22% for FTSE 100. Wow.  Yes, excessive home bias poses risks. Should all balance out in the long term assuming you can wait. 

Before I discovered investment trusts, I was 100 UK, FTSE100 shares like Centrica, British Airways (as was), Aviva etc. So it could have been a lot worse!!!

I don't envy the poor so-and-so's running a HYP like I used to. 

I am not a fan of income funds. Reduces diversification, concentrates you in a small number of industries. I see no advantage in having larger dividends vs, for example, share buy backs. What really matters is future profitability, over the next few decades. And selling a few shares is just as easy as drawing dividends - if you need income. I do understand why it works for some people on a purely psychological level.

Having said all this, it all evens out in the long term as long as you are not too concentrated.

I see your point, but selling shares to get an income is not cost effective. It is cost effective for funds though. But yes, getting a dividend is psychologically pleasing.

Perhaps I should ditch these IT's from my pension and build a better OEIC portfolio.

OEICs will behave in a very similar way to your IT's if you use the same strategy and invest for income. I would go a bit more global and don't worry so much about dividends.

ffacoffipawb

Prism said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

Minus 22% for FTSE 100. Wow.  Yes, excessive home bias poses risks. Should all balance out in the long term assuming you can wait. 

Before I discovered investment trusts, I was 100 UK, FTSE100 shares like Centrica, British Airways (as was), Aviva etc. So it could have been a lot worse!!!

I don't envy the poor so-and-so's running a HYP like I used to. 

I am not a fan of income funds. Reduces diversification, concentrates you in a small number of industries. I see no advantage in having larger dividends vs, for example, share buy backs. What really matters is future profitability, over the next few decades. And selling a few shares is just as easy as drawing dividends - if you need income. I do understand why it works for some people on a purely psychological level.

Having said all this, it all evens out in the long term as long as you are not too concentrated.

I see your point, but selling shares to get an income is not cost effective. It is cost effective for funds though. But yes, getting a dividend is psychologically pleasing.

Perhaps I should ditch these IT's from my pension and build a better OEIC portfolio.

OEICs will behave in a very similar way to your IT's if you use the same strategy and invest for income. I would go a bit more global and don't worry so much about dividends.

How about:

Vanguard Global Equity 50%
Fundsmith 10%
Lindsell Train Global 10%
Rathbone Global Opps 10%
Blue Whale 10%
Vanguard LS 20/80 10% - for near term drawdown.

Or is this too racy?

Possible 3% drawdown rate required, age 56.

NB Funds fully crystallised.

Prism

ffacoffipawb said:

Prism said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

Minus 22% for FTSE 100. Wow.  Yes, excessive home bias poses risks. Should all balance out in the long term assuming you can wait. 

Before I discovered investment trusts, I was 100 UK, FTSE100 shares like Centrica, British Airways (as was), Aviva etc. So it could have been a lot worse!!!

I don't envy the poor so-and-so's running a HYP like I used to. 

I am not a fan of income funds. Reduces diversification, concentrates you in a small number of industries. I see no advantage in having larger dividends vs, for example, share buy backs. What really matters is future profitability, over the next few decades. And selling a few shares is just as easy as drawing dividends - if you need income. I do understand why it works for some people on a purely psychological level.

Having said all this, it all evens out in the long term as long as you are not too concentrated.

I see your point, but selling shares to get an income is not cost effective. It is cost effective for funds though. But yes, getting a dividend is psychologically pleasing.

Perhaps I should ditch these IT's from my pension and build a better OEIC portfolio.

OEICs will behave in a very similar way to your IT's if you use the same strategy and invest for income. I would go a bit more global and don't worry so much about dividends.

How about:

Vanguard Global Equity 50%
Fundsmith 10%
Lindsell Train Global 10%
Rathbone Global Opps 10%
Blue Whale 10%
Vanguard LS 20/80 10% - for near term drawdown.

Or is this too racy?

Possible 3% drawdown rate required, age 56.

NB Funds fully crystallised.

I wouldn't be the best sounding board for if that is too racy as I have nearly 50% in Fundsmith plus a bunch of other active funds. For what its worth I would use most of those funds above. I also quite like your Troy Income and Growth trust.

That Vanguard fund.. did you really mean that one instead of one of Vanguards low cost passive ones? You could even consider an ETF since it sounds like your platform is cheaper for shares.

ffacoffipawb

Prism said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Prism said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

ffacoffipawb said:

Deleted_User said:

Minus 22% for FTSE 100. Wow.  Yes, excessive home bias poses risks. Should all balance out in the long term assuming you can wait. 

Before I discovered investment trusts, I was 100 UK, FTSE100 shares like Centrica, British Airways (as was), Aviva etc. So it could have been a lot worse!!!

I don't envy the poor so-and-so's running a HYP like I used to. 

I am not a fan of income funds. Reduces diversification, concentrates you in a small number of industries. I see no advantage in having larger dividends vs, for example, share buy backs. What really matters is future profitability, over the next few decades. And selling a few shares is just as easy as drawing dividends - if you need income. I do understand why it works for some people on a purely psychological level.

Having said all this, it all evens out in the long term as long as you are not too concentrated.

I see your point, but selling shares to get an income is not cost effective. It is cost effective for funds though. But yes, getting a dividend is psychologically pleasing.

Perhaps I should ditch these IT's from my pension and build a better OEIC portfolio.

OEICs will behave in a very similar way to your IT's if you use the same strategy and invest for income. I would go a bit more global and don't worry so much about dividends.

How about:

Vanguard Global Equity 50%
Fundsmith 10%
Lindsell Train Global 10%
Rathbone Global Opps 10%
Blue Whale 10%
Vanguard LS 20/80 10% - for near term drawdown.

Or is this too racy?

Possible 3% drawdown rate required, age 56.

NB Funds fully crystallised.

I wouldn't be the best sounding board for if that is too racy as I have nearly 50% in Fundsmith plus a bunch of other active funds. For what its worth I would use most of those funds above. I also quite like your Troy Income and Growth trust.

That Vanguard fund.. did you really mean that one instead of one of Vanguards low cost passive ones? You could even consider an ETF since it sounds like your platform is cheaper for shares.

Any of these 3 Vanguards for the 50% I guess, though not sure the difference between the first and last, probably no difference if no currency hedge.