Wealth Preservation Funds - Do you use them? Current Views?

Albermarle

ChilliBob said:

coyrls said:

If you construct your own portfolio, you typically don't use multi-asset funds, as then you can't control the asset allocation of the whole portfolio.  I know there's been a spate of posts with people mix and matching multi asset funds with other funds but except in very limited circumstances, it doesn't make sense to me.  I would suggest it should be one thing (a multi-asset fund) or another (a portfolio of funds) and I suspect that is why people who are constructing their own portfolio don't opt for multi-asset funds.

I see where you are coming from, however, surely something like CGT is multi asset as it invests on bonds, cash, gold, property etc. 

Yes it is a kind of actively managed multi asset fund .

ChilliBob

There does seem to be a small number of competitors in this space, which seems odd, this little group is mentioned often

Thrugelmir

ChilliBob said:

There does seem to be a small number of competitors in this space, which seems odd, this little group is mentioned often

That's because they are the most well know names. Vanguard gets mentioned constantly but Blackrock is a far larger and more diverse investment group on the global stage. 

Linton

Albermarle said:

ChilliBob said:

coyrls said:

If you construct your own portfolio, you typically don't use multi-asset funds, as then you can't control the asset allocation of the whole portfolio.  I know there's been a spate of posts with people mix and matching multi asset funds with other funds but except in very limited circumstances, it doesn't make sense to me.  I would suggest it should be one thing (a multi-asset fund) or another (a portfolio of funds) and I suspect that is why people who are constructing their own portfolio don't opt for multi-asset funds.

I see where you are coming from, however, surely something like CGT is multi asset as it invests on bonds, cash, gold, property etc. 

Yes it is a kind of actively managed multi asset fund .

mm not quite I think.  Yes they hold multi assets but...

A normal multi asset fund's purpose is to hold a particular range of predefined assets with %s either fixed or changing with the economic situation.  Then given this allocation the returns are whatever they are.  It doesnt matter to the fund.

WP funds can invest in anything they want in whatever %s they want.  Their objective is solely to preserve wealth.  If they do that they have succeeded, if they dont they have failed.  That is all that matters.

ChilliBob

Take something like BG managed, I see this as the same as CG but quite a few notches up the risk scale, but ultimately its the same thing just with different aims, growth taking priority over preservation, with higher volatility 

Moe_The_Bartender

ChilliBob said:

Take something like BG managed, I see this as the same as CG but quite a few notches up the risk scale, but ultimately its the same thing just with different aims, growth taking priority over preservation, with higher volatility 

If you look at the stated objectives of CGT, PNL and BG Managed, you will see that they are not the same at all.

PNL : Our policy is to protect and increase (in that order) the value of shareholders’ funds per share over the long term.

CGT: The Company’s dual objectives are to preserve shareholders’ real wealth and to achieve absolute total returns over the medium to longer term.

BG Managed: To achieve capital growth over rolling five-year periods.

eskbanker

ChilliBob said:

Take something like BG managed, I see this as the same as CG but quite a few notches up the risk scale, but ultimately its the same thing just with different aims, growth taking priority over preservation, with higher volatility 

Sounds like the story of Trigger's broom - they're both the same except for the fundamental differences....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onlyfools/quotes/quote11.shtml

ChilliBob

Lol, what I meant is that they arr both active funds using a multi asset approach. But with different aims in mind.

As opposed to passive multi asset funds, or active funds which aren't multi asset! 

ChilliBob

Moe_The_Bartender said:

ChilliBob said:

Take something like BG managed, I see this as the same as CG but quite a few notches up the risk scale, but ultimately its the same thing just with different aims, growth taking priority over preservation, with higher volatility 

If you look at the stated objectives of CGT, PNL and BG Managed, you will see that they are not the same at all.

PNL : Our policy is to protect and increase (in that order) the value of shareholders’ funds per share over the long term.

CGT: The Company’s dual objectives are to preserve shareholders’ real wealth and to achieve absolute total returns over the medium to longer term.

BG Managed: To achieve capital growth over rolling five-year periods.

Completely, yes. BG is in no wap WP in any shape of form. The point I was making is I feel there is a place for multi asset funds within a larger portfolio, as oppose to  *just* using a multi asset fund like LifeStrategy 60 or something.

quirkydeptless

I use Troy Trojan X and PNL. Where I hold it depends whether it is more cost efficient to use the OEIC Fund or the Investment Trust. Apart from that I think of it as the same thing. I wanted an active "Wealth Preservation" investment for the defensive part of my portfolio along side a passive bond index. It's about a 50/50 split. Defensives are about 50% of my DIY portfolio  at the moment, but having WP means the Equity balance is higher than 50%, but with a weighing toward WP shares selected actively.