Lindsell Train Global Equity

bowlhead99

csgohan4 said:

While I appreciate no fund is risk free, the global trackers are a safer bet, than an active fund, woodford being a prime example

If you define risk as 'the risk of getting a different return to a global tracker' then nothing will be lower risk or 'safer' than that global tracker.

That's perhaps a bit simplistic as it ignores the fact that markets can be defined differently and there will be different views on what proportions of what markets to hold and how to create the indices; some asset classes do not have cheap and accurate trackers; some fund managers will deliberately have a strategy of investing in a portfolio with lower volatility than the index and so wouldn't be considered 'higher risk' for doing that, rather the opposite, etc.

Thrugelmir

csgohan4 said:

Johnnyboy11 said:

csgohan4 said:

Have you considered Fundsmith or it's sustainable sister fund which has no oil/gas which is useful in the long run.

I am still mulling on ditching my cheap index tracker for the active funds on offer, SMT is still an option, although maybe the boat has sailed for that one

Yes, Fundsmith Equity currently makes up 16% of my portfolio, compared with LTGE at around 10%. I've avoided SMT, even during the recent dips. I'm thinking of going in the opposite direction and investing mainly in cheap global equity trackers.

While I appreciate no fund is risk free, the global trackers are a safer bet, than an active fund, woodford being a prime example

Being devil's advocate. If the unlisted/small company stock was backed by Gates \Bezos\ Musk then the share price would be heading towards the moon. Woodford was one of the main proponents in the UK of backing start-up's. So is actually a great loss. Yet all we hear now is that the UK doesn't haven't good new companies to invest in. Retail investors are a fickle bunch. Bottom line is that hate risking their capital. Herd investing rules at the current time.

Linton

csgohan4 said:

Johnnyboy11 said:

csgohan4 said:

Have you considered Fundsmith or it's sustainable sister fund which has no oil/gas which is useful in the long run.

I am still mulling on ditching my cheap index tracker for the active funds on offer, SMT is still an option, although maybe the boat has sailed for that one

Yes, Fundsmith Equity currently makes up 16% of my portfolio, compared with LTGE at around 10%. I've avoided SMT, even during the recent dips. I'm thinking of going in the opposite direction and investing mainly in cheap global equity trackers.

.......
1) The passive investor in me says to stick my trackers, but I wonder if using active funds will yield better results, even LTGE has done better than my vanguard cheap tracker, but obviously comes at a higher OCF cost. 
2) Interesting your doing the opposite of what I am considering, moving from an active fund to passive. Do you feel that the risk/performance would be better balanced in a global index tracker.  
3) While I appreciate no fund is risk free, the global trackers are a safer bet, than an active fund, woodford being a prime example

1) Performance is calculated after deduction of cost, so whether LTGE has greater or lesser charges is irrelevent to a performance comparison.  In this case perhaps it would be more insightful to say "LTGE has done better than my vanguard cheap tracker, despite a higher OCF cost. "
2) The best risk/performance balance very much depends on ones circumstances.  What would be appropriate for one person could b totally wrong for another.  WIth active funds it is easier to make the adjustment.
3) Can you name a few more sizable funds which have collapsed in the past 20 years?  Or is Woodford a unique example from which it is impossible to draw any general conclusions?

csgohan4

bowlhead99 said:

csgohan4 said:

While I appreciate no fund is risk free, the global trackers are a safer bet, than an active fund, woodford being a prime example

If you define risk as 'the risk of getting a different return to a global tracker' then nothing will be lower risk or 'safer' than that global tracker.

That's perhaps a bit simplistic as it ignores the fact that markets can be defined differently and there will be different views on what proportions of what markets to hold and how to create the indices; some asset classes do not have cheap and accurate trackers; some fund managers will deliberately have a strategy of investing in a portfolio with lower volatility than the index and so wouldn't be considered 'higher risk' for doing that, rather the opposite, etc.

Of course safest imo would be the global index trackers with a track record such as VG, HSBC e.t.c. 

Sure their not stellar, but their not awful either.

just wanted to see if other active funds can beat it, although rather hopeful tbh for something with the same risk which will probably not exist as active funds can be more risky in general. 

Just testing the waters at the moment, I am already up by 3% on my index tracker  which is not bad and beats overpaying my mortgage at this time. 

But interesting getting opinions from more experienced investors here, guess we all have different opinions/ strategies

It can be difficult at times for the newish investor like me, not to avoid temptation to backing todays winners such as SMT and even INRG to an extent and seeing their stellar returns over the last 6 months

Although the latter could be argued as a sector/satellite investment rather than your main bulk

C_Mababejive

After the Woodford saga, i do worry a little about star performer managers ,,but then what do i know. I know Mr Train is well thought of in the investment world. My global fund is a tracker because it doesnt have any emotion.

Moe_The_Bartender

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

Johnnyboy11 said:

csgohan4 said:

Have you considered Fundsmith or it's sustainable sister fund which has no oil/gas which is useful in the long run.

I am still mulling on ditching my cheap index tracker for the active funds on offer, SMT is still an option, although maybe the boat has sailed for that one

Yes, Fundsmith Equity currently makes up 16% of my portfolio, compared with LTGE at around 10%. I've avoided SMT, even during the recent dips. I'm thinking of going in the opposite direction and investing mainly in cheap global equity trackers.

While I appreciate no fund is risk free, the global trackers are a safer bet, than an active fund, woodford being a prime example

Being devil's advocate. If the unlisted/small company stock was backed by Gates \Bezos\ Musk then the share price would be heading towards the moon. Woodford was one of the main proponents in the UK of backing start-up's. So is actually a great loss. Yet all we hear now is that the UK doesn't haven't good new companies to invest in. Retail investors are a fickle bunch. Bottom line is that hate risking their capital. Herd investing rules at the current time.

But Woodford shouldn’t have been backing start ups in an Equity Income fund. The clue is in the name. If he wanted to back start ups, the fund should have been defined as such instead of which he was effectively running two separate funds under a single badge. 

His Patient Capital Trust was where his start ups should have been.

Thrugelmir

csgohan4 said:

bowlhead99 said:

csgohan4 said:

While I appreciate no fund is risk free, the global trackers are a safer bet, than an active fund, woodford being a prime example

If you define risk as 'the risk of getting a different return to a global tracker' then nothing will be lower risk or 'safer' than that global tracker.

That's perhaps a bit simplistic as it ignores the fact that markets can be defined differently and there will be different views on what proportions of what markets to hold and how to create the indices; some asset classes do not have cheap and accurate trackers; some fund managers will deliberately have a strategy of investing in a portfolio with lower volatility than the index and so wouldn't be considered 'higher risk' for doing that, rather the opposite, etc.

It can be difficult at times for the newish investor like me, not to avoid temptation to backing todays winners such as SMT and even INRG to an extent and seeing their stellar returns over the last 6 months

Reinforces my earlier post. INRG has just 30 holdings. One as an example. Plug Power is up over 50% in a month yet has no revenues or ever made a profit. There's a difference between backing winners, i.e. established companies, and jumping on the latest market bandwagon simply because others are. 

Amazon is a major investor in Plug Power. Which no doubt excites the US Robinhood investors. 

quirkydeptless

C_Mababejive said:

After the Woodford saga, i do worry a little about star performer managers

I was invested in Woodford's fund but sold well before the bad times.

The reason I sold was that I was thinking, if this fund is all based around one star performer, what would happen to the fund if something unfortunate happened to him?

I was thinking e.g. an untimely death, and the fund plummeting before I could get out, but what actually happened created the same horror scenario for investors, even if not for Mr Woodford himself.

Thrugelmir

quirkydeptless said:

C_Mababejive said:

After the Woodford saga, i do worry a little about star performer managers

The reason I sold was that I was thinking, if this fund is all based around one star performer, what would happen to the fund if something unfortunate happened to him?

Musk is Tesla. Interestingly Tesla has disbanded it's PR department.  Likewise most of the monolithic US giants are in essence founder controlled. 

Moe_The_Bartender

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

bowlhead99 said:

csgohan4 said:

While I appreciate no fund is risk free, the global trackers are a safer bet, than an active fund, woodford being a prime example

If you define risk as 'the risk of getting a different return to a global tracker' then nothing will be lower risk or 'safer' than that global tracker.

That's perhaps a bit simplistic as it ignores the fact that markets can be defined differently and there will be different views on what proportions of what markets to hold and how to create the indices; some asset classes do not have cheap and accurate trackers; some fund managers will deliberately have a strategy of investing in a portfolio with lower volatility than the index and so wouldn't be considered 'higher risk' for doing that, rather the opposite, etc.

It can be difficult at times for the newish investor like me, not to avoid temptation to backing todays winners such as SMT and even INRG to an extent and seeing their stellar returns over the last 6 months

Reinforces my earlier post. INRG has just 30 holdings. One as an example. Plug Power is up over 50% in a month yet has no revenues or ever made a profit. There's a difference between backing winners, i.e. established companies, and jumping on the latest market bandwagon simply because others are. 

Amazon is a major investor in Plug Power. Which no doubt excites the US Robinhood investors. 

Plug Power revenues in its last financial year were $0.260bn.