Lindsell Train Global Equity

Thrugelmir

Moe_The_Bartender said:

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.

I stand corrected. Market cap of $6.89billion makes for a demanding valuation. 

csgohan4

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. 

Only recently it has picked up in terms of returns, prior to this, it was mediocre, breaking even. That's what concerned me about that particular fund, why and how long will it last for and how sustainable it will be. 

The more I think and gather others responses, the more I should back established funds which aren't stellar but solid performers, SMT excluded.  I am gearing more towards the fundsmith funds. Although it wouldn't be wrong to stick with my global index tracker either. 

Appreciate everyone's replies

Stargunner

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

SMT is not just one of today’s winners, look at its performance over the last 10 years and there are other funds/IT’s with similar returns.

Thrugelmir

csgohan4 said:

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. 

Only recently it has picked up in terms of returns, prior to this, it was mediocre, breaking even. That's what concerned me about that particular fund, why and how long will it last for and how sustainable it will be. 

The more I think and gather others responses, the more I should back established funds which aren't stellar but solid performers, SMT excluded.  I am gearing more towards the fundsmith funds

Appreciate everyone's replies

For me it's so reminiscent of the Dot Com boom.  There's many companies with potential that's undeniable. Though only a fraction will ultimately be commercial winners. When the dust settled after the Dot Com boom. Only around 25% survived. The remainder were bought out or went bust.   LastMinute.Com was the classic example in the UK. Market valuation of £523 million at peak. £29 million turnover yet had no profit history. Made Martha Fox a millionaire. Yet failed as a commercial concept. 

Johnnyboy11

Moe_The_Bartender said:

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.

And arguably LTGE shouldn't be betting the farm on a handful of large caps in a 'Global Equity' marketed fund (The largest 5 holdings currently represent 37% of the fund). Does anyone holding this Global Equity fund really thinks an 8.43% holding in Unilever makes good sense and is to be expected? I don't, hence my concers and decision to exit.

csgohan4

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

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. 

Only recently it has picked up in terms of returns, prior to this, it was mediocre, breaking even. That's what concerned me about that particular fund, why and how long will it last for and how sustainable it will be. 

The more I think and gather others responses, the more I should back established funds which aren't stellar but solid performers, SMT excluded.  I am gearing more towards the fundsmith funds

Appreciate everyone's replies

For me it's so reminiscent of the Dot Com boom.  There's many companies with potential that's undeniable. Though only a fraction will ultimately be commercial winners. When the dust settled after the Dot Com boom. Only around 25% survived. The remainder were bought out or went bust.   LastMinute.Com was the classic example in the UK. Market valuation of £523 million at peak. £29 million turnover yet had no profit history. Made Martha Fox a millionaire. Yet failed as a commercial concept. 

I chickened out of buying SMT a few months ago, for better or worse, maybe a missed opportunity, but as I tried to time the market, it failed. So I am going more defensive but adventurous enough to look at more better performing funds over the index trackers

We probably wouldn't be having this conversation if I had bought SMT and I would be sitting on a nice profit, but things happen for a reason perhaps. Maybe it's not a risk I wanted to take

Stargunner

csgohan4 said:

Only recently it has picked up in terms of returns, prior to this, it was mediocre, breaking even. That's what concerned me about that particular fund, why and how long will it last for and how sustainable it will be. 

INRG tracks the performance of an index composed of 30 of the largest global companies involved in the clean energy sector.

I can only see this going in one direction in the future with every country looking to make the planet greener.

csgohan4

Stargunner said:

csgohan4 said:

Only recently it has picked up in terms of returns, prior to this, it was mediocre, breaking even. That's what concerned me about that particular fund, why and how long will it last for and how sustainable it will be. 

INRG tracks the performance of an index composed of 30 of the largest global companies involved in the clean energy sector.

I can only see this going in one direction in the future with every country looking to make the planet greener.

certainly on my shortlist of satellite funds, rather than main equities bulk

Thrugelmir

Johnnyboy11 said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

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.

And arguably LTGE shouldn't be betting the farm on a handful of large caps in a 'Global Equity' marketed fund (The largest 5 holdings currently represent 37% of the fund). Does anyone holding this Global Equity fund really thinks an 8.43% holding in Unilever makes good sense and is to be expected? I don't, hence my concers and decision to exit.

Unilever is a boring defensive company. Never going to be high growth. But will churn out profits year in year out.  

Take any global tracker and the top 20 holdings are going to account for around 20% of the value. (VWRL has over 3,400 holdings in total). 

A_T

Thrugelmir said:

Johnnyboy11 said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

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.

And arguably LTGE shouldn't be betting the farm on a handful of large caps in a 'Global Equity' marketed fund (The largest 5 holdings currently represent 37% of the fund). Does anyone holding this Global Equity fund really thinks an 8.43% holding in Unilever makes good sense and is to be expected? I don't, hence my concers and decision to exit.

Unilever is a boring defensive company. Never going to be high growth. But will churn out profits year in year out.  

Take any global tracker and the top 20 holdings are going to account for around 20% of the value. (VWRL has over 3,400 holdings in total). 

Unilever's strength is it's huge presence in emerging markets - whose populations are growing with increasing consumer appetites - there's a lot of potential for growth.