cgar & cgt opinion

Albermarle

I think the above is good info in the 'Actives vs passives ' debate .
You could also substitute CG with Personal Assets Trust, as their performance /stability so far this year has been very similar. 

ChilliBob

I am mostly passive, but you could argue that's a good reason to choose CGT over VLS in this case. They have kept pretty close until things start getting ugly and now CGT is pulling away. 

Well, that's the narrative the managers would have you believe.. Which is semi convincing! 

Rollinghome

Albermarle said:

I think the above is good info in the 'Actives vs passives ' debate .
You could also substitute CG with Personal Assets Trust, as their performance /stability so far this year has been very similar. 

CGT, PNL, RICA, and possibly RIT, are all well-regarded ITs with an emphasis on wealth preservation but all doing it in different ways.  PNL leans towards the all-weather approach - equities, gold, bonds and cash.  CGT normally has very little gold, Peter Spiller isn't a fan, and RICA is happy to dip in and out and short. Rothschild's RIT has the most complex approach, including using hedge funds. The first three all have oeic versions.

Vanguard's LF 20% might do better than any of those, or one of the other LF funds better still.  But they will continue to hold equity and bond trackers in exactly the stated percentages no matter what.  It's for you to make the decision on which LF might do better over the timescale you're considering, or if you have the skill to profitably move between them. Deciding in hindsight where you ought to have been won't help you.

The managed funds, for better or worse, have flexibility.  They decide for you when to move between the asset classes, between conventional and IL bonds, between types of equities and prefs. For those skills there will be a price.

All we have to do is to decide whether paying for active management and those higher fees will be of value to us and deliver a better outcome, while bearing in mind that past performance tends to be a poor indicator of future performance. You pays your money etc...

Albermarle

Vanguard's LF 20% might do better than any of those, or one of the other LF funds better still

VLS 20 has performed poorly, short term and long term against all the WP funds mentioned .

It is 8.5% down in the last 6 months, and only just over 2% annualised growth over 5 years.

PA and CGT have been stable in recent months, and have an annualised 5 year growth around 7%

Ruffer has dome even better with an increase of 5% in last 6 months and 8% annualised over 5 years .

I would not really class RIT as the same sort of fund, a bit more risque.

Rollinghome

Albermarle said:

Vanguard's LF 20% might do better than any of those, or one of the other LF funds better still

VLS 20 has performed poorly, short term and long term against all the WP funds mentioned .

It is 8.5% down in the last 6 months, and only just over 2% annualised growth over 5 years.

PA and CGT have been stable in recent months, and have an annualised 5 year growth around 7%

Ruffer has dome even better with an increase of 5% in last 6 months and 8% annualised over 5 years .

I would not really class RIT as the same sort of fund, a bit more risque.

LS20 has performed in line with the investments it's mandated to hold, as you'd expect.

Most obviously latterly stuck with the tumbling price of those bonds. Which was why I've been invested in CGT along with those other managed funds for the last few years, rather than bonds.  Bonds haven't been the place to be of late.

CGT has had a superb record ever since Peter Spiller took over management. But just because that's what's showing in the rearview mirror, I don't kid myself that's an immutable rule of nature.  It'll continue for as long as the managers get their calls right and the tools are available for them to do it.  Continually overcoming the extra costs of active management isn't a trick many managers out there can pull off.

RIT is similar in that it also states its commitment to WP in its aims.  RICA can be fairly, what you call, "risque" at times too, some would argue more so, including a £1bn bitcoin trade last year, and both are more volatile. They each seek to achieve their WP aims in very different ways.

talexuser

I moved into CGT, PNL and CLDN around 2017/18 and topped up most of my other global dividends into them in the meantime, thinking the market (particularly USA) was getting too toppy. They did their job during the pandemic downturn. I had RICA but it was swapped for RCP since was going nowhere in comparison. Since then it had gained ground but apparently partly because of a bet on bitcoin which luckily came off. I don't think a manager tasked with capital preservation should be having short term bets on bitcoin, not my opinion of low risk.