Market timing

ColdIron

aroominyork said:

I understand the convenience of how you manage it, but surely a portfolio is only the sum of its parts and if a significant part is intended to earn income while forgoing growth, I wonder if it is accurate to say it is managed on a total return basis.

It's managed to achieve my objectives. There comes a time in life when you have enough to maintain a very comfortable life without aiming for growth that you may never need. As I edge ever closer to my dotage other factors come into play and this approach has increasing appeal

10 or 20 years ago with a reliable salary and no requirement for income, UK equity didn't figure much in my plans. As I say, horses for courses, right tools for the job and all that good stuff, and to return to the point, 'ex-growth' UK dinosaurs have their place as part of some portfolios

MaxiRobriguez

aroominyork said:

jamesd said:

aroominyork said:

- UK market. Yes it's cheap, but it has been for years. It's dominated by old school moniliths so no reason to think it will rise.

Cheap or expensive compared to other markets is irrelevant. What matters is whether it's cheap or expensive compared to its own long term cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio. Those are different for each market. The that way for a while and monoliths aspects cause me to think that the comment was relative to other markets not this market compared to its own average.

I think it was in relation to other countries, but that his 'monoliths' comment meant many FTSE100 companies are what he calls 'ex-growth' and on a downward spiral in a global investing context.

I wonder how many experienced investors on this forum or elsewhere have more than 10% of their equities in a UK index fund? I guess not many.

Define "experienced"?

My UK size is around 25% and highly concentrated in around 12 different companies I've picked - probably too risky for most, but gives me a reasonable mix of small cap/growth and large cap/steady cash flow/predictable dividends. Growth has been 4% annually and combined dividend yield has been 4.5% over that period. 

Would have been better just shoving in a US tracker but there you go, perhaps if I had more than five years investing experience I'd have known better, and qualify as being experienced at the same time.

aroominyork

MaxiRobriguez said:

aroominyork said:

jamesd said:

aroominyork said:

- UK market. Yes it's cheap, but it has been for years. It's dominated by old school moniliths so no reason to think it will rise.

Cheap or expensive compared to other markets is irrelevant. What matters is whether it's cheap or expensive compared to its own long term cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio. Those are different for each market. The that way for a while and monoliths aspects cause me to think that the comment was relative to other markets not this market compared to its own average.

I think it was in relation to other countries, but that his 'monoliths' comment meant many FTSE100 companies are what he calls 'ex-growth' and on a downward spiral in a global investing context.

I wonder how many experienced investors on this forum or elsewhere have more than 10% of their equities in a UK index fund? I guess not many.

Define "experienced"?

Ask Jimi Hendrix.

Diplodicus

MaxiRobriguez said:

aroominyork said:

jamesd said:

aroominyork said:

- UK market. Yes it's cheap, but it has been for years. It's dominated by old school moniliths so no reason to think it will rise.

Cheap or expensive compared to other markets is irrelevant. What matters is whether it's cheap or expensive compared to its own long term cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio. Those are different for each market. The that way for a while and monoliths aspects cause me to think that the comment was relative to other markets not this market compared to its own average.

I think it was in relation to other countries, but that his 'monoliths' comment meant many FTSE100 companies are what he calls 'ex-growth' and on a downward spiral in a global investing context.

I wonder how many experienced investors on this forum or elsewhere have more than 10% of their equities in a UK index fund? I guess not many.

Define "experienced"?

My UK size is around 25% and highly concentrated in around 12 different companies I've picked - 

I'm about 28% UK but all look out to wider mkts. Is it even accurate to label BHP as UK? For a couple of reasons, I'm sceptical about geographical allocation models:

1) The internet.

2) Everyone already has a huge investment in the country in which they reside.

Thrugelmir

aroominyork said:

jamesd said:

aroominyork said:

- UK market. Yes it's cheap, but it has been for years. It's dominated by old school moniliths so no reason to think it will rise.

Cheap or expensive compared to other markets is irrelevant. What matters is whether it's cheap or expensive compared to its own long term cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio. Those are different for each market. The that way for a while and monoliths aspects cause me to think that the comment was relative to other markets not this market compared to its own average.

I think it was in relation to other countries, but that his 'monoliths' comment meant many FTSE100 companies are what he calls 'ex-growth' and on a downward spiral in a global investing context.

I wonder how many experienced investors on this forum or elsewhere have more than 10% of their equities in a UK index fund? I guess not many.

I don't hold more than 10% of my portfolio in any single index fund. On occcasions I've held more than 10% of my portfolio in a single UK listed share though. 

george4064

aroominyork said:

Possibly the point Dillow was most assertive about - and he is clearly a 'steady as you go' man - is that equity portfolios should include private equity, though diversified between managers. So I pulled out the private equity companies on HL which seemed most credible* and these are the numbers for HVPE, BPET, IPRV (an ETF), PEY and XLPE (an ETF) compared to HSBC All World Index. If you can handle the volatility you might agree they have a place.

Edit    * by searching on companies with 'private equity' in their name, which misses out most of them!

BPET = BMO Private Equity Trust plc, can’t see that in your table?

MarkCarnage

aroominyork said:

Possibly the point Dillow was most assertive about - and he is clearly a 'steady as you go' man - is that equity portfolios should include private equity, though diversified between managers. So I pulled out the private equity companies on HL which seemed most credible* and these are the numbers for HVPE, BPET, IPRV (an ETF), PEY and XLPE (an ETF) compared to HSBC All World Index. If you can handle the volatility you might agree they have a place.

Edit    * by searching on companies with 'private equity' in their name, which misses out most of them!

You've missed out Pantheon Participations....5 year performance is about 90%, 10 year is excellent....

Thrugelmir

Also missed Apax Global. 

I bought F&C Enterprise Trust at launch in 1981.  Private equity is nothing new. 

aroominyork

As I said, I just searched on a couple of words (see the *). It's also a shortish time frame, but I guess the two ETFs give a flavour of the sector. Here is one of them as far back as Trustnet charting goes, alongside IA Global.

george4064

aroominyork said:

As I said, I just searched on words (see the *). It's also a shortish time frame, but I guess the two ETFs give a flavour of the sector.

I read your * comment, but BPET should still make the cut since it has ‘private equity’ in the name.

Also, you mention BPET in your paragraph yet it’s not in the table.