The Boring Bit of the Portfolio

csgohan4

Aminatidi said:

pip895 said:

That's interesting Aminatid - you have about 37% Equity  (adding in your cash and assuming 40% of the wealth preservation funds are equity).  My figure is 70% if HY bonds and property count as equity.

I don't include the cash though I appreciate it's probably considered standard to do so.

I know that you can't buy past performance but I find it fascinating if you look at the long term performance of funds and trusts that are considered "defensive" or generally low convention equity exposure and compare them against 100% equities.

I'm perhaps more of the "slow and steady wins the race" mindset but it took me long enough to save it up and I put a value on preserving it whilst growing it.

That's interesting, CGT a defensive fund  beats the run of the mill index which most passive funds will be following

Aminatidi

csgohan4 said:

That's interesting, CGT a defensive fund  beats the run of the mill index which most passive funds will be following

I think the thing that demonstrates for me is that it's really easy to look at the investment environment over the past 10 years where you pretty much would struggle to have lost money.

The likes of Capital Gearing Trust and Personal Assets Trust have experience of doing that sort of thing for a long time across a range of economic environments and I think they demonstrate that over the long term not losing money in the first place can also be really important.

NottinghamKnight

Though you'd need to plot this against a range of timeframes, not just 10 years and 25 years of course.

Albermarle

Aminatidi said:

pip895 said:

That's interesting Aminatid - you have about 37% Equity  (adding in your cash and assuming 40% of the wealth preservation funds are equity).  My figure is 70% if HY bonds and property count as equity.

I don't include the cash though I appreciate it's probably considered standard to do so.

I know that you can't buy past performance but I find it fascinating if you look at the long term performance of funds and trusts that are considered "defensive" or generally low convention equity exposure and compare them against 100% equities.

I'm perhaps more of the "slow and steady wins the race" mindset but it took me long enough to save it up and I put a value on preserving it whilst growing it.

Over a shorter time scale ( as they have not existed that long ) you an see that PNL and CGT have perform very similarly  to VLS40 / HSBC global strategy Conservative etc 

Alexland

Aminatidi said:
I know that you can't buy past performance but I find it fascinating if you look at the long term performance of funds and trusts that are considered "defensive" or generally low convention equity exposure and compare them against 100% equities.

It's not that fascinating because of course you are only considering these two because they have done well. In future you might be looking at a different two that have done well.

Aminatidi

NottinghamKnight said:

Though you'd need to plot this against a range of timeframes, not just 10 years and 25 years of course.

100% agree.

Regular contribution v lump sums it all makes a difference.

LifeStrategy, HSBC Global, L&G, whatever, my simple point was that right now I prefer to take an all-weather approach alongside a few more volatile equity holdings that I hope will perform strongly.

It may or may not work.

pip895

It is interesting looking at these longer term graphs - Being in global equity between 2000 and 2002 wasn't great but then CGT was very poor between 2013-15.  The thought I take from this is that its worth keeping things diversified - If I had put a high percentage of my portfolio into CGT in August 13, would I have been happily still holding it in August 2015 when it was still 10% down whilst equity was enjoying double digit returns?

Aminatidi

pip895 said:

It is interesting looking at these longer term graphs - Being in global equity between 2000 and 2002 wasn't great but then CGT was very poor between 2013-15.  The thought I take from this is that its worth keeping things diversified - If I had put a high percentage of my portfolio into CGT in August 13, would I have been happily still holding it in August 2015 when it was still 10% down whilst equity was enjoying double digit returns?

That's kind of the point of all-weather

If you look at any asset class there will be times when it isn't doing so well.

There are plenty of multi-asset funds it's just that when dull/boring and "defensive" comes up the ones I mentioned are often brought up.

csgohan4

Aminatidi said:

pip895 said:

It is interesting looking at these longer term graphs - Being in global equity between 2000 and 2002 wasn't great but then CGT was very poor between 2013-15.  The thought I take from this is that its worth keeping things diversified - If I had put a high percentage of my portfolio into CGT in August 13, would I have been happily still holding it in August 2015 when it was still 10% down whilst equity was enjoying double digit returns?

That's kind of the point of all-weather

If you look at any asset class there will be times when it isn't doing so well.

There are plenty of multi-asset funds it's just that when dull/boring and "defensive" comes up the ones I mentioned are often brought up.

it's like the tech funds, which previous weren't doing well and has shot up tremendously, 

So good to diversify your funds to make up any shortfall.

Obviously hindsight is great and you probably would have gone all in  in CGT

pip895

Alexland said:

It's not that fascinating because of course you are only considering these two because they have done well. In future you might be looking at a different two that have done well.

A good point - What you really want is the equivalent of CGT in August 2013 - Ruffer might actually be a better bet perhaps..  Ruffer didn't budge much in the Feb/March correction which is a point in its favour..

Are there other wealth preservation ITs with good pedigree but ideally out of favor?