Recent BG losses, SMT etc. What's up?

Thrugelmir

Amazin said:

duckson said:

Moderna has lost getting on for 50% since its peak in late Nov, this accounts for 10.5% of SMT so that has likely had an impact I'd guess. Alot of gains in 2020/earlier 2021 were driven by Tesla but they have reduced their holding and upped Moderna (i think.....I have a small amount of SMT since mid 2020 and buy a small amount every month).

I guess people sometimes get worried because some funds do starting to go on a gradual decline. Unlikely the case with SMT considering their long track record. Some people also concerned because James Anderson is stepping down

Tesla was bought over a decade ago. Track records aren't eternal. They happen for explainable reasons (when viewed with the aid of hindsight). James Anderson hasn't been complimentry about his ex employer either........

jimjames

Sold out of SMT at the end of November as premium was getting too high. Wise move in hindsight!

eastmidsaver

as some others above have pointed out,  can't worry too much about short term falls.  almost every fund will get them.  if you do regular investments, see it as an opportunity of getting more units / shares for your money.

Audaxer

w12ee3e said:

I'm about to sink under water on my investments in BG products. I've had a really good run but over the last 6 weeks it's been nonstop red red red. 

But presumably you have not lost all the gains you made on SMT and other BG products in previous months/years? If you have other funds that hadn't done as well as the likes of SMT last year, maybe you should have rebalanced a while ago and cashed in some of the BG gains.

adindas

SMT.L Betha value is less than 1 e.g., 0.62. It should not be as volatile as they are currently showing.

https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/SMT.L/Beta

Apart from the current stock market due to fear of inflation due to interest hikes, changing management is there any other major news.

Do you thnk chaging of SMT management will effect their performance in the long run ??

daveharruk

I doubt this is anything to do with James Anderson standing down, as SMT has generally still been on a small premium recently (i.e. if there was loss of confidence this would already be apparent by a growing discount rather than the usual small premium). BG are one of the best fund managers for keeping in touch with their shareholders (you can register on their website for updates). Personally I would take the current price action as an opportunity to consider buying more, if possible. Rather than "mean reversion", it's more likely that their funds will continue to outperform over time. It really annoys me when people trot out the "timing vs time in the market" mantra as if it is the only way to invest. Yes, timing the market to perfection is difficult, but this doesn't mean you should just get in at any price (not that I'm saying that you have) without any rules. Personally I adopt a few simple rules such as only buying if the thing is in a long-term uptrend, only buy after a pullback, start small and use a trailing stop loss with non-core higher risk trusts like SMT. What is happening currently with SMT and other BG funds looks quite similar to what happened at the start of last year - I will be very surprised if it doesn't start hitting higher highs again later this year, but if it doesn't then just about everything else is going down with it too...

daveharruk

Thrugelmir said:

Amazin said:

duckson said:

Moderna has lost getting on for 50% since its peak in late Nov, this accounts for 10.5% of SMT so that has likely had an impact I'd guess. Alot of gains in 2020/earlier 2021 were driven by Tesla but they have reduced their holding and upped Moderna (i think.....I have a small amount of SMT since mid 2020 and buy a small amount every month).

I guess people sometimes get worried because some funds do starting to go on a gradual decline. Unlikely the case with SMT considering their long track record. Some people also concerned because James Anderson is stepping down

Tesla was bought over a decade ago. Track records aren't eternal. They happen for explainable reasons (when viewed with the aid of hindsight). James Anderson hasn't been complimentry about his ex employer either........

Ex employer? He still works there... James Anderson's comments should be taken in the context of a guy who has been there for over 20 years and in the culture of a company which welcomes comments. Unless something really important changes long-term (such as long-term high interest rates - which is not very likely) then there's more chance that a long-term well performing fund will continue to perform well than not.

adindas

daveharruk said:

.... It really annoys me when people trot out the "timing vs time in the market" mantra as if it is the only way to invest. Yes, timing the market to perfection is difficult, but this doesn't mean you should just get in at any price (not that I'm saying that you have) without any rules. ...

Time in the market versus timing the market is the phrase that we often hear be kept repeated. Similarly, the Chinese Proverb “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.” –

This phrase might be more suitable for people in the old days where there were less real time news, analytical tools were availbale for free. Thus it is more suitable to those who do not have time to read the news; They only buy a very well-diversified index fund  a few  times a year (not very often), to be hold for a very long time. It is less relevant if you buy an individual stock or an investment trust which just hold a small amount of stocks, and not well diversified in the portfolio.

In reality many fund managers (if not majority of them) do timing the market when they have decided to buy/sell securities on a particular day for rebalancing purposes for instance.

They do not just blindly buy at any time at any price on that day. They are using VWAP and instruct the broker to buy for them when the price below VWAP on that day.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vwap.asp

NoviceInvestor1

daveharruk said:

.......Unless something really important changes long-term (such as long-term high interest rates - which is not very likely) then there's more chance that a long-term well performing fund will continue to perform well than not.

Is there any evidence that suggests there is a higher chance than not of performance persistence from funds that have performed well in the past?

Alexland

adindas said:
This phrase might be more suitable for people in the old days where there were less real time news, analytical tools were availbale for free. 

The whole point of 'time in the market' is to avoid such dross from leading investors into taking self destructive actions. Now there is more dross available it's even more important to remember most of us are investing not short term trading.

In reality many fund managers (if not majority of them) do timing the market

Yup and on average over the long term it produces a lower return. Very few fund managers can outperform over multiple decades.