Best Region for Investments

Hitting

Thanks for feedback....funds are generally listed geographically, is there a similar list for sectors,...or does one have look at each fund separately and analyse its makeup?

Albermarle

Hitting said:

Thanks Max,...interesting you have 25% India and China and avoid Europe!
I was thinking 20%Gilts/Corp.Bonds;15%uk;15%us;15%euro;15%global;10%japan;10%emerg.mkts.

Looking at some risk with caution,if that makes sense......% I’m not sure about!

Don't forget the 20% non equities also have a geographical home and there would also be arguments on both sides for them to be UK based or spread more globally as well. 

Moe_The_Bartender

Hitting said:

Thanks for feedback....funds are generally listed geographically, is there a similar list for sectors,...or does one have look at each fund separately and analyse its makeup?

Personally, I would never buy a fund without looking at its holdings to determine whether or not it’s right for me.

There are lists for sectors and they are not hard to find. Use the fund search function on Hargreaves Lansdown, for example, and searching by sectors is one of the drop down options. Same goes for investments trusts and ETFs.

coachman12

Some posts here suggest you should go for sectors rather than geography; others suggest geography is fine so long as you balance that geography and make the right % amounts within your portfolio. I agree with both views and I think it is possible to do both. It depends to some extent on the size of your portfolio but it is an interesting hobby to try and mix and match sectors with various areas of the world. For example, I am trying a small scale experiment within my portfolio , which is mainly sector-led, but also tries to encompass a global approach where possible ( unless it is obviously Chinese, which I would never touch---knowingly----for ethical reasons ). So I am looking at what is probably the most under-priced  region which IMHO is Latin America and trying out a little dabbling  (experimental on a smallish scale) by buying shares in Central/South America company shares, based on diverse sectors, and seeing how they progress over a period of time. I hasten to add that the "experiment" is a very small fraction of my entire portfolio so will do no damage if it goes disastrously wrong----as it will do according to my personal adviser . Time will tell.
Just for the record , Hitting, I thought your original question is a rather good and interesting one and did not deserve the impolite response from dunstonh.

Prism

coachman12 said:

Just for the record , Hitting, I thought your original question is a rather good and interesting one and did not deserve the impolite response from dunstonh.

I think the fact that Hitting seemed a little surprised that they made need to look at the details of each fund is rather telling. Probably best to stay away from region or sector allocations at this stage.

coachman12

Prism said:

coachman12 said:

Just for the record , Hitting, I thought your original question is a rather good and interesting one and did not deserve the impolite response from dunstonh.

I think the fact that Hitting seemed a little surprised that they made need to look at the details of each fund is rather telling. Probably best to stay away from region or sector allocations at this stage.

So another "hitting on" Hitting's original post, though not as strident as the other really mean one one referred to earlier. 
If you read the first post on this thread and the second post by Linton, they are raising and answering interesting questions IMO. I  think you do a disservice to both Hitting and Linton and most other reasonable posters on this thread who have taken the question as being wholly valid and given their constructive opinions accordingly.
And as to your point about staying away from both sectors AND regions when investing in the present circumstances, I cannot see how that is possible----there are no other really valid ways of increasing a successful portfolio without diversification. And even if in present climate, we just opt for Blue Chips, for instance, we must surely base them around sector/region if we are to have that winning formula that is called diversification.

Prism

coachman12 said:

Prism said:

coachman12 said:

Just for the record , Hitting, I thought your original question is a rather good and interesting one and did not deserve the impolite response from dunstonh.

I think the fact that Hitting seemed a little surprised that they made need to look at the details of each fund is rather telling. Probably best to stay away from region or sector allocations at this stage.

So another "hitting on" Hitting's original post, though not as strident as the other really mean one one referred to earlier. 
If you read the first post on this thread and the second post by Linton, they are raising and answering interesting questions IMO. I  think you do a disservice to both Hitting and Linton and most other reasonable posters on this thread who have taken the question as being wholly valid and given their constructive opinions accordingly.
And as to your point about staying away from both sectors AND regions when investing in the present circumstances, I cannot see how that is possible----there are no other really valid ways of increasing a successful portfolio without diversification. And even if in present climate, we just opt for Blue Chips, for instance, we must surely base them around sector/region if we are to have that winning formula that is called diversification.

I would go back to Linton's post too which is just invest in a global fund and then you don't need to worry about regions and sectors. You just get the index if its a passive or the fund managers selection if an active. Almost everyone should do that unless they have some experience and a particular reason to do otherwise.

bowlhead99

coachman12 said:

Prism said:

coachman12 said:

Just for the record , Hitting, I thought your original question is a rather good and interesting one and did not deserve the impolite response from dunstonh.

I think the fact that Hitting seemed a little surprised that they made need to look at the details of each fund is rather telling. Probably best to stay away from region or sector allocations at this stage.

So another "hitting on" Hitting's original post, though not as strident as the other really mean one one referred to earlier.

Within the first post, the OP enquired per the thread title and the first line of his post, which region would be the 'best' region; and then with his next sentence immediately changed the question to ask which combination of certain regions would be suggested for "medium risk / balanced view". 

So, there wasn't a cohesive question in the first place (betraying a lack of understanding about how investment generally works), and Dunstonh's response was certainly true when he pointed out that, "You cannot know in advance which region/sector is going to be best.   And none of the regions you mention would be classed as medium or balanced risk".

You may castigate this as a 'mean' response, without having a better answer yourself.

However, the response from Dunstonh is basically making the same point as Linton ("The future is always uncertain.  In my view you should be investing in all regions") and Thrugelmir ("All regions.  There's a myriad of different risks to be considered"), whose responses you commended as constructive while believing Dunstonh's to be impolite and Prism's to be "hitting" on the original poster.

If you read the first post on this thread and the second post by Linton, they are raising and answering interesting questions IMO. I  think you do a disservice to both Hitting and Linton and most other reasonable posters on this thread who have taken the question as being wholly valid and given their constructive opinions accordingly

As the original poster is clearly unsure of what region in which he should focus his efforts for the 'best' or most 'medium risk /balanced' result (and indeed whether he is really looking for the 'best' result, versus the most 'medium risk / balanced' result), and was curious whether he should even analyse a prospective fund's holdings to understand how it invests its money... it does make sense for a poster such as Prism to point out that such a person is possibly not the ideal candidate with knowledge and expertise to evaluate how to allocate capital among individual specialist funds.

Especially if they are only going to get their inspiration from asking anonymous forum users. They would likely to better by buying-in a professionally allocated or managed fund.

[Deleted User]

An alternative to sectors is themes, explained here
https://www.ftadviser.com/2013/05/20/investments/equities/what-is-thematic-investing-w3LiWXr0dAGoXq0NByI3rI/article.html
I have a few theme ETFs, DTEC Disruptive Technology is one.

Hitting

Thanks coachman for your comments,...and for your criticism of others.....

Generally some interesting ideas!