Anyone invested in Rathbone Global Opportunities / JP Morgan Emerging Markets?

garmeg

Deleted_User said:

garmeg said:

Audaxer said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

I had a look at that fund recently and it does look like a really good growth fund with great returns over the last few years. 

Yes, it looks interesting and a decent discount at Hargreaves Lansdown too.

Probably because it is backed by Peter Hargreaves, which may or may not be a good thing. How much independence does the manager Stephen Yiu have?
Some interesting analysis on the Citywire forums about it.

I was referring to Rathbones here, not Blue Whale!

BritishInvestor

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

But obviously that could all change in an instant!!!

We de-risked from employee share save scheme.  US based.

However, it is our "last to be touched" money.. so will remain invested for a good while yet.


It represents approx 15% of our overall portfolio.

15% in one fund is quite brave. Wish I had been so brave with Blue Whale!

I see funds like this as just fine for a core holding. I am around 50% in Fundsmith and my wife has 100% of her SIPP in a single Baillie Gifford fund.

Everyone has their own requirements for a core holding but it's worth pointing out that it consists of 30 shares (with the top 10 holdings comprising almost 50% of the total) focused primarily on tech, healthcare and consumer defensive and with a skew to large cap, so a very different proposition in terms of risk vs a global equity holding. 

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000LK2O&tab=3

Prism

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

But obviously that could all change in an instant!!!

We de-risked from employee share save scheme.  US based.

However, it is our "last to be touched" money.. so will remain invested for a good while yet.


It represents approx 15% of our overall portfolio.

15% in one fund is quite brave. Wish I had been so brave with Blue Whale!

I see funds like this as just fine for a core holding. I am around 50% in Fundsmith and my wife has 100% of her SIPP in a single Baillie Gifford fund.

Everyone has their own requirements for a core holding but it's worth pointing out that it consists of 30 shares (with the top 10 holdings comprising almost 50% of the total) focused primarily on tech, healthcare and consumer defensive and with a skew to large cap, so a very different proposition in terms of risk vs a global equity holding. 

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000LK2O&tab=3

This is a good example of having to dig under the covers quite a bit with funds like Rathbone Global or Fundsmith. Based on the Morningstar categories Fundsmith is actually underweight technology and overweight only healthcare and consumer defensive. Rathbones is overweight technology and consumer cyclical. GICS categories give different results.

However the true picture comes down to the individual stocks. For example Fundsmith has nearly 9% in financials but doesn't touch banks or insurance. Its technology weighting is only software. Rathbone Global is a more diverse global fund which doesn't seem to avoid certain cyclical areas and therefore includes things like chip makers and retailers. It also has double the number of holdings as Fundsmith. It seems to trade more frequently with higher transaction costs.

So it can come down to if you think its a good thing to exclude most cyclical companies or sectors (Fundsmith) or exclude non growth companies (Rathbone) or include everything (Index). Everyone will probably have a good argument for why their approach has the least risk - depending on quite what they mean by risk.

Audaxer

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

But obviously that could all change in an instant!!!

We de-risked from employee share save scheme.  US based.

However, it is our "last to be touched" money.. so will remain invested for a good while yet.


It represents approx 15% of our overall portfolio.

15% in one fund is quite brave. Wish I had been so brave with Blue Whale!

I see funds like this as just fine for a core holding. I am around 50% in Fundsmith and my wife has 100% of her SIPP in a single Baillie Gifford fund.

Everyone has their own requirements for a core holding but it's worth pointing out that it consists of 30 shares (with the top 10 holdings comprising almost 50% of the total) focused primarily on tech, healthcare and consumer defensive and with a skew to large cap, so a very different proposition in terms of risk vs a global equity holding. 

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000LK2O&tab=3

This is a good example of having to dig under the covers quite a bit with funds like Rathbone Global or Fundsmith. Based on the Morningstar categories Fundsmith is actually underweight technology and overweight only healthcare and consumer defensive. Rathbones is overweight technology and consumer cyclical. GICS categories give different results.

However the true picture comes down to the individual stocks. For example Fundsmith has nearly 9% in financials but doesn't touch banks or insurance. Its technology weighting is only software. Rathbone Global is a more diverse global fund which doesn't seem to avoid certain cyclical areas and therefore includes things like chip makers and retailers. It also has double the number of holdings as Fundsmith. It seems to trade more frequently with higher transaction costs.

So it can come down to if you think its a good thing to exclude most cyclical companies or sectors (Fundsmith) or exclude non growth companies (Rathbone) or include everything (Index). Everyone will probably have a good argument for why their approach has the least risk - depending on quite what they mean by risk.

I see that Rathbone Global Opportunities has nearly 27% in Tech which is presumably part of the reason for the good growth. Their portfolio page on AJ Bell also shows a Price / Earnings ratio of 42.75 - I'm no expert on what that means but it seems very high?

Prism

Audaxer said:

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

But obviously that could all change in an instant!!!

We de-risked from employee share save scheme.  US based.

However, it is our "last to be touched" money.. so will remain invested for a good while yet.


It represents approx 15% of our overall portfolio.

15% in one fund is quite brave. Wish I had been so brave with Blue Whale!

I see funds like this as just fine for a core holding. I am around 50% in Fundsmith and my wife has 100% of her SIPP in a single Baillie Gifford fund.

Everyone has their own requirements for a core holding but it's worth pointing out that it consists of 30 shares (with the top 10 holdings comprising almost 50% of the total) focused primarily on tech, healthcare and consumer defensive and with a skew to large cap, so a very different proposition in terms of risk vs a global equity holding. 

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000LK2O&tab=3

This is a good example of having to dig under the covers quite a bit with funds like Rathbone Global or Fundsmith. Based on the Morningstar categories Fundsmith is actually underweight technology and overweight only healthcare and consumer defensive. Rathbones is overweight technology and consumer cyclical. GICS categories give different results.

However the true picture comes down to the individual stocks. For example Fundsmith has nearly 9% in financials but doesn't touch banks or insurance. Its technology weighting is only software. Rathbone Global is a more diverse global fund which doesn't seem to avoid certain cyclical areas and therefore includes things like chip makers and retailers. It also has double the number of holdings as Fundsmith. It seems to trade more frequently with higher transaction costs.

So it can come down to if you think its a good thing to exclude most cyclical companies or sectors (Fundsmith) or exclude non growth companies (Rathbone) or include everything (Index). Everyone will probably have a good argument for why their approach has the least risk - depending on quite what they mean by risk.

I see that Rathbone Global Opportunities has nearly 27% in Tech which is presumably part of the reason for the good growth. Their portfolio page on AJ Bell also shows a Price / Earnings ratio of 42.75 - I'm no expert on what that means but it seems very high?

Partly tech but looking at its top 10 I think its as much down to its allocation to online retailers like Amazon and Ocado as well as select healthcare stocks like Sartorius and financials like Paypal - none of which are in the tech category.

For growth stocks like these P/E doesn't mean a lot.

BritishInvestor

Prism said:

Everyone will probably have a good argument for why their approach has the least risk - depending on quite what they mean by risk.

Agreed, and in my experience people think about risk in terms of 
1. Portfolio falling too far in terms of market turbulence (volatility/drawdown)
2. Portfolio going to zero (if we accept that market holdings are unlikely to go to zero this is only going to come about by taking concentrated punts).
In addition, I think it's important to consider:
3. For retirees, the risk of running out of money.
for those choosing active funds
4. Concentration risk (be it sector, idiosyncratic or geographic).
5. Factor risk (will large cap growth always "outperform"?)
6. Fund manager risk - risk of deviating from their mandate.

BritishInvestor

Prism said:

Audaxer said:

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

But obviously that could all change in an instant!!!

We de-risked from employee share save scheme.  US based.

However, it is our "last to be touched" money.. so will remain invested for a good while yet.


It represents approx 15% of our overall portfolio.

15% in one fund is quite brave. Wish I had been so brave with Blue Whale!

I see funds like this as just fine for a core holding. I am around 50% in Fundsmith and my wife has 100% of her SIPP in a single Baillie Gifford fund.

Everyone has their own requirements for a core holding but it's worth pointing out that it consists of 30 shares (with the top 10 holdings comprising almost 50% of the total) focused primarily on tech, healthcare and consumer defensive and with a skew to large cap, so a very different proposition in terms of risk vs a global equity holding. 

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000LK2O&tab=3

This is a good example of having to dig under the covers quite a bit with funds like Rathbone Global or Fundsmith. Based on the Morningstar categories Fundsmith is actually underweight technology and overweight only healthcare and consumer defensive. Rathbones is overweight technology and consumer cyclical. GICS categories give different results.

However the true picture comes down to the individual stocks. For example Fundsmith has nearly 9% in financials but doesn't touch banks or insurance. Its technology weighting is only software. Rathbone Global is a more diverse global fund which doesn't seem to avoid certain cyclical areas and therefore includes things like chip makers and retailers. It also has double the number of holdings as Fundsmith. It seems to trade more frequently with higher transaction costs.

So it can come down to if you think its a good thing to exclude most cyclical companies or sectors (Fundsmith) or exclude non growth companies (Rathbone) or include everything (Index). Everyone will probably have a good argument for why their approach has the least risk - depending on quite what they mean by risk.

I see that Rathbone Global Opportunities has nearly 27% in Tech which is presumably part of the reason for the good growth. Their portfolio page on AJ Bell also shows a Price / Earnings ratio of 42.75 - I'm no expert on what that means but it seems very high?

Partly tech but looking at its top 10 I think its as much down to its allocation to online retailers like Amazon and Ocado as well as select healthcare stocks like Sartorius and financials like Paypal - none of which are in the tech category.

For growth stocks like these P/E doesn't mean a lot.

I think you have to be careful saying P/E doesn't mean a lot because at some point the market might decide that it does, either because of share specific reasons or general market sentiment.
When does investing become speculation?

Prism

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

Audaxer said:

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

But obviously that could all change in an instant!!!

We de-risked from employee share save scheme.  US based.

However, it is our "last to be touched" money.. so will remain invested for a good while yet.


It represents approx 15% of our overall portfolio.

15% in one fund is quite brave. Wish I had been so brave with Blue Whale!

I see funds like this as just fine for a core holding. I am around 50% in Fundsmith and my wife has 100% of her SIPP in a single Baillie Gifford fund.

Everyone has their own requirements for a core holding but it's worth pointing out that it consists of 30 shares (with the top 10 holdings comprising almost 50% of the total) focused primarily on tech, healthcare and consumer defensive and with a skew to large cap, so a very different proposition in terms of risk vs a global equity holding. 

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000LK2O&tab=3

This is a good example of having to dig under the covers quite a bit with funds like Rathbone Global or Fundsmith. Based on the Morningstar categories Fundsmith is actually underweight technology and overweight only healthcare and consumer defensive. Rathbones is overweight technology and consumer cyclical. GICS categories give different results.

However the true picture comes down to the individual stocks. For example Fundsmith has nearly 9% in financials but doesn't touch banks or insurance. Its technology weighting is only software. Rathbone Global is a more diverse global fund which doesn't seem to avoid certain cyclical areas and therefore includes things like chip makers and retailers. It also has double the number of holdings as Fundsmith. It seems to trade more frequently with higher transaction costs.

So it can come down to if you think its a good thing to exclude most cyclical companies or sectors (Fundsmith) or exclude non growth companies (Rathbone) or include everything (Index). Everyone will probably have a good argument for why their approach has the least risk - depending on quite what they mean by risk.

I see that Rathbone Global Opportunities has nearly 27% in Tech which is presumably part of the reason for the good growth. Their portfolio page on AJ Bell also shows a Price / Earnings ratio of 42.75 - I'm no expert on what that means but it seems very high?

Partly tech but looking at its top 10 I think its as much down to its allocation to online retailers like Amazon and Ocado as well as select healthcare stocks like Sartorius and financials like Paypal - none of which are in the tech category.

For growth stocks like these P/E doesn't mean a lot.

I think you have to be careful saying P/E doesn't mean a lot because at some point the market might decide that it does, either because of share specific reasons or general market sentiment.
When does investing become speculation?

What I should have said was that price is important but earnings on a growth company often hard to judge. When the growth opportunity is there a company like Amazon can choose to earn almost nothing. The big question is are they investing their profits better than we could? P/E is probably too simplistic to mean much. 

Thrugelmir

Audaxer said:

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

But obviously that could all change in an instant!!!

We de-risked from employee share save scheme.  US based.

However, it is our "last to be touched" money.. so will remain invested for a good while yet.


It represents approx 15% of our overall portfolio.

15% in one fund is quite brave. Wish I had been so brave with Blue Whale!

I see funds like this as just fine for a core holding. I am around 50% in Fundsmith and my wife has 100% of her SIPP in a single Baillie Gifford fund.

Everyone has their own requirements for a core holding but it's worth pointing out that it consists of 30 shares (with the top 10 holdings comprising almost 50% of the total) focused primarily on tech, healthcare and consumer defensive and with a skew to large cap, so a very different proposition in terms of risk vs a global equity holding. 

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000LK2O&tab=3

This is a good example of having to dig under the covers quite a bit with funds like Rathbone Global or Fundsmith. Based on the Morningstar categories Fundsmith is actually underweight technology and overweight only healthcare and consumer defensive. Rathbones is overweight technology and consumer cyclical. GICS categories give different results.

However the true picture comes down to the individual stocks. For example Fundsmith has nearly 9% in financials but doesn't touch banks or insurance. Its technology weighting is only software. Rathbone Global is a more diverse global fund which doesn't seem to avoid certain cyclical areas and therefore includes things like chip makers and retailers. It also has double the number of holdings as Fundsmith. It seems to trade more frequently with higher transaction costs.

So it can come down to if you think its a good thing to exclude most cyclical companies or sectors (Fundsmith) or exclude non growth companies (Rathbone) or include everything (Index). Everyone will probably have a good argument for why their approach has the least risk - depending on quite what they mean by risk.

. 

Their portfolio page on AJ Bell also shows a Price / Earnings ratio of 42.75 - I'm no expert on what that means but it seems very high?

The higher the p/e ratio the greater the expectations for future growth of the business. When a company disappoints , which eventually it will, the share price will react accordingly. Hence why there's much discussion currently between the valuations placed on some company shares and the real economy. The disconnect.  The new Robinhood investors seem to care little for company fundamentals.

garmeg

Thrugelmir said:

Audaxer said:

Prism said:

BritishInvestor said:

Prism said:

garmeg said:

Sea_Shell said:

We've been in Rathbones Global Opportunities for 2 years.  It's going great guns at the moment, at a record high.

But obviously that could all change in an instant!!!

We de-risked from employee share save scheme.  US based.

However, it is our "last to be touched" money.. so will remain invested for a good while yet.


It represents approx 15% of our overall portfolio.

15% in one fund is quite brave. Wish I had been so brave with Blue Whale!

I see funds like this as just fine for a core holding. I am around 50% in Fundsmith and my wife has 100% of her SIPP in a single Baillie Gifford fund.

Everyone has their own requirements for a core holding but it's worth pointing out that it consists of 30 shares (with the top 10 holdings comprising almost 50% of the total) focused primarily on tech, healthcare and consumer defensive and with a skew to large cap, so a very different proposition in terms of risk vs a global equity holding. 

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000LK2O&tab=3

This is a good example of having to dig under the covers quite a bit with funds like Rathbone Global or Fundsmith. Based on the Morningstar categories Fundsmith is actually underweight technology and overweight only healthcare and consumer defensive. Rathbones is overweight technology and consumer cyclical. GICS categories give different results.

However the true picture comes down to the individual stocks. For example Fundsmith has nearly 9% in financials but doesn't touch banks or insurance. Its technology weighting is only software. Rathbone Global is a more diverse global fund which doesn't seem to avoid certain cyclical areas and therefore includes things like chip makers and retailers. It also has double the number of holdings as Fundsmith. It seems to trade more frequently with higher transaction costs.

So it can come down to if you think its a good thing to exclude most cyclical companies or sectors (Fundsmith) or exclude non growth companies (Rathbone) or include everything (Index). Everyone will probably have a good argument for why their approach has the least risk - depending on quite what they mean by risk.

. 

Their portfolio page on AJ Bell also shows a Price / Earnings ratio of 42.75 - I'm no expert on what that means but it seems very high?

The higher the p/e ratio the greater the expectations for future growth of the business. When a company disappoints , which eventually it will, the share price will react accordingly. Hence why there's much discussion currently between the valuations placed on some company shares and the real economy. The disconnect.  The new Robinhood investors seem to care little for company fundamentals.

2000 all over again, and we know how that ended!