Baillie Gifford American B Acc - What To Do?

GSP

Malthusian said:

GSP said:

Just how scientific should this all be?

Scientific enough to eliminate non-systemic risk as far as practical, and balance the desire/need for long term growth with the need to not panic or have sleepless nights. While not so scientific that you get Canute-like delusions of being able to control the markets.
Dumping the two worst performing funds each year is very much at the "art" end of the art/science spectrum. And by that I mean the Jackson Pollock "throw stuff around at random" end.

It’s certainly more of a conversation I’ll be having with my IFA at the next review. Just how well have those funds done since they got the chop from my portfolio?

aroominyork

GSP said:

Malthusian said:

GSP said:

Just how scientific should this all be?

Scientific enough to eliminate non-systemic risk as far as practical, and balance the desire/need for long term growth with the need to not panic or have sleepless nights. While not so scientific that you get Canute-like delusions of being able to control the markets.
Dumping the two worst performing funds each year is very much at the "art" end of the art/science spectrum. And by that I mean the Jackson Pollock "throw stuff around at random" end.

It’s certainly more of a conversation I’ll be having with my IFA at the next review. Just how well have those funds done since they got the chop from my portfolio?

I suggest you research that in detail before the meeting. Your IFA may be well practised in explaining away underperformance and blinding you with science.

JohnWinder

Well, is there any point? If ‘how well they’ve done’ is being considered over a period of several years, or worse months, and your investment horizon is decades it doesn’t matter whether they’ve gone up or down. What matters is how much you’ve been able to spend/give away by the time you die. Short term returns won’t be much of a guide to that.

Malthusian

GSP said:

It’s certainly more of a conversation I’ll be having with my IFA at the next review. Just how well have those funds done since they got the chop from my portfolio?

If the answer is "rubbish" will that be proof the IFA is a genius? Hey, it could turn out that "dump the two worst funds each year" is the solution to the 50-year-old mystery of how active management can consistently beat the market.

What goes down doesn't always come up again. Sometimes it goes down some more and then goes up later, or bumbles along for years without doing much, or gets quietly merged into another fund with a better record.

Either you trust the IFA's strategy or you don't. Past performance is very weak evidence to inform that decision. If you don't have faith in his strategy, there's no real benefit in compiling evidence that the funds he dropped went on to outperform so you can shout "gotcha".

If it turns out that you were well out of them, it doesn't mean that continuing to chop the two worst funds in future years will continue to deliver outperformance.

Thrugelmir

GSP said:

Thrugelmir said:

GSP said:

ChainsawCharlie said:

GSP said:

My IFA suggested this investment during a portfolio rebalance in Oct ‘20.

It performed well, very well in fact, but like a lot of investments has fallen since the end of the year and since December it’s fallen over 50%.

On the whole everything is down and the whole pot is down 20%.

When my next rebalance comes in the Autumn, what do you think with this investment? It seems to have gone down so much how much further can it fall?

This investment is now only 4% of my total and my IFA may suggest dumping it as he usually dumps the two worse performing investments over the year.

My thoughts are it may take a while but to sit tight on this one and keep it. Actually thinking about it when investments are reviewed, there must be an argument to say the top performing investments should go as how much is left in them to bolster the pot.

Thanks

Sounds to me like you have the same "Numpty" IFA I had....before I gave the halfwit the boot.
So the IFA uses the ongoing to make knee jerk reactions in the name of rebalancing?

There does not appear to be one set of rules and strategy people should follow, because someone will always find fault in these.

If everybody followed the same strategy then markets would no longer be efficient. 

I was meaning the people who frequent on here. 😀

Not a question of finding fault.  The same basic errors repeat themselves over and over. We all start at the bottom of the ladder. Investing in many ways is something learnt from personal experiences. 

GSP

Thrugelmir said:

GSP said:

Thrugelmir said:

GSP said:

ChainsawCharlie said:

GSP said:

My IFA suggested this investment during a portfolio rebalance in Oct ‘20.

It performed well, very well in fact, but like a lot of investments has fallen since the end of the year and since December it’s fallen over 50%.

On the whole everything is down and the whole pot is down 20%.

When my next rebalance comes in the Autumn, what do you think with this investment? It seems to have gone down so much how much further can it fall?

This investment is now only 4% of my total and my IFA may suggest dumping it as he usually dumps the two worse performing investments over the year.

My thoughts are it may take a while but to sit tight on this one and keep it. Actually thinking about it when investments are reviewed, there must be an argument to say the top performing investments should go as how much is left in them to bolster the pot.

Thanks

Sounds to me like you have the same "Numpty" IFA I had....before I gave the halfwit the boot.
So the IFA uses the ongoing to make knee jerk reactions in the name of rebalancing?

There does not appear to be one set of rules and strategy people should follow, because someone will always find fault in these.

If everybody followed the same strategy then markets would no longer be efficient. 

I was meaning the people who frequent on here. 😀

Not a question of finding fault.  The same basic errors repeat themselves over and over. We all start at the bottom of the ladder. Investing in many ways is something learnt from personal experiences. 

Sorry, finding fault were the wrong words if that sounds a bit harsh. Questioning strategies or the like would have been more appropriate.

GSP

Malthusian said:

GSP said:

It’s certainly more of a conversation I’ll be having with my IFA at the next review. Just how well have those funds done since they got the chop from my portfolio?

If the answer is "rubbish" will that be proof the IFA is a genius? Hey, it could turn out that "dump the two worst funds each year" is the solution to the 50-year-old mystery of how active management can consistently beat the market.

What goes down doesn't always come up again. Sometimes it goes down some more and then goes up later, or bumbles along for years without doing much, or gets quietly merged into another fund with a better record.

Either you trust the IFA's strategy or you don't. Past performance is very weak evidence to inform that decision. If you don't have faith in his strategy, there's no real benefit in compiling evidence that the funds he dropped went on to outperform so you can shout "gotcha".

If it turns out that you were well out of them, it doesn't mean that continuing to chop the two worst funds in future years will continue to deliver outperformance.

I imagine that sometimes choices made were the right ones, other times not quite the right ones!

Thrugelmir

GSP said:

Malthusian said:

GSP said:

It’s certainly more of a conversation I’ll be having with my IFA at the next review. Just how well have those funds done since they got the chop from my portfolio?

If the answer is "rubbish" will that be proof the IFA is a genius? Hey, it could turn out that "dump the two worst funds each year" is the solution to the 50-year-old mystery of how active management can consistently beat the market.

What goes down doesn't always come up again. Sometimes it goes down some more and then goes up later, or bumbles along for years without doing much, or gets quietly merged into another fund with a better record.

Either you trust the IFA's strategy or you don't. Past performance is very weak evidence to inform that decision. If you don't have faith in his strategy, there's no real benefit in compiling evidence that the funds he dropped went on to outperform so you can shout "gotcha".

If it turns out that you were well out of them, it doesn't mean that continuing to chop the two worst funds in future years will continue to deliver outperformance.

I imagine that sometimes choices made were the right ones, other times not quite the right ones!

If we could forecast the future then the probabilities would be greatly improved. 

GSP

Thrugelmir said:

GSP said:

Malthusian said:

GSP said:

It’s certainly more of a conversation I’ll be having with my IFA at the next review. Just how well have those funds done since they got the chop from my portfolio?

If the answer is "rubbish" will that be proof the IFA is a genius? Hey, it could turn out that "dump the two worst funds each year" is the solution to the 50-year-old mystery of how active management can consistently beat the market.

What goes down doesn't always come up again. Sometimes it goes down some more and then goes up later, or bumbles along for years without doing much, or gets quietly merged into another fund with a better record.

Either you trust the IFA's strategy or you don't. Past performance is very weak evidence to inform that decision. If you don't have faith in his strategy, there's no real benefit in compiling evidence that the funds he dropped went on to outperform so you can shout "gotcha".

If it turns out that you were well out of them, it doesn't mean that continuing to chop the two worst funds in future years will continue to deliver outperformance.

I imagine that sometimes choices made were the right ones, other times not quite the right ones!

If we could forecast the future then the probabilities would be greatly improved. 

And in a period where uncertainty is king in most things.

I thought covid was the biggest challenge on where we would end up. The current situation is even more unsettling.

Thrugelmir

GSP said:

Thrugelmir said:

GSP said:

Malthusian said:

GSP said:

It’s certainly more of a conversation I’ll be having with my IFA at the next review. Just how well have those funds done since they got the chop from my portfolio?

If the answer is "rubbish" will that be proof the IFA is a genius? Hey, it could turn out that "dump the two worst funds each year" is the solution to the 50-year-old mystery of how active management can consistently beat the market.

What goes down doesn't always come up again. Sometimes it goes down some more and then goes up later, or bumbles along for years without doing much, or gets quietly merged into another fund with a better record.

Either you trust the IFA's strategy or you don't. Past performance is very weak evidence to inform that decision. If you don't have faith in his strategy, there's no real benefit in compiling evidence that the funds he dropped went on to outperform so you can shout "gotcha".

If it turns out that you were well out of them, it doesn't mean that continuing to chop the two worst funds in future years will continue to deliver outperformance.

I imagine that sometimes choices made were the right ones, other times not quite the right ones!

If we could forecast the future then the probabilities would be greatly improved. 

And in a period where uncertainty is king in most things.

I thought covid was the biggest challenge on where we would end up. The current situation is even more unsettling.

Covid was the trigger. There was a bill that would still need to have been paid even without events in Eastern Europe. Biden's US free lunch stimulus was always a gamble.