Capital Gearing Trust

MarcoM

Linton said:

MarcoM said:

aroominyork said:

Also worth pointing out a very different approach to equities. CGT focuses on value; PNL focuses on quality growth.

would buying both make sense or would it just be pointless duplication?

My relatively large holding in WP is split fairly evenly between Troy Trojan and CGT.  I done expect there will be much difference overall but it helps one sleep at night.   If your holding is a relatively small part of your total investments I see no point in having both but then there is no real downside either.

Do you also diversify between platforms or do you trust the platform you use to be solvent and viable for decades?

Albermarle

Linton said:

MarcoM said:

Linton said:

The 2 main Wealth Preservation trusts are CGT and Personal Assets Trusts (PNL).  

Then not quitie he same but sometimes placed in the same category are Ruffer Investment TRUST (RIT) and RIT Capital Partners (RCP).  RIT is a little eccentric eg going into Bitcoin in a small way.   RCP  was set by the Rothschilds to look after their finances, and the family still have very large holdings.  It is rather higher equity and thus more volatile than one might expect in a wealth preservation fund.  I dont believe the costs will be significantly cheaper.

I dont believe the costs make any signifgicant difference to the behaviour of the funds.  If you are after a high long term return and low costs use a 100 % equity tracker and accept the high volatility.  If you want steady growth with minimal excitement in a wide range of economic conditions I think CGT and PNL are worth hiolding.  The graphs shows the last 5 years which provides a good example.  Note that such graphs are after fund manager costs though obviously cannot include platform costs.

Thanks Linton,

of the two which has lesser exposure to the UK? Am I right in saying it is PNL?

From Morningstar:

Personal assets trust - 29.5% equity of which 22% is UK
CGT - 21.8% equity of which 29% is UK

So as a % of the fund as a whole they both have about the same % UK equity.

I dont see equity being a major factor in the operation of WP funds and guess that just provides long term growth. Where they have excelled is in the active management  of non-equity.  For example CGT was highly invested in short dated US inflation linked bonds well before recent events.

But I think overall PNL has a much higher US non equity content than CGT, which is why I have both to try and balance it out.

aroominyork

I see three main differences:

1) More UK bonds in CGT

2) A slant towards UK value equities in CGT and to US growth equities in PNL

3) Gold in PNL.

I have about 20% of my portfolio in CGT but am slowly going to introduce PNL (or probably Troy Trojan) and make it something like a 60/40 split.

Linton

aroominyork said:

I see three main differences:

1) More UK bonds in CGT
2) A slant towards UK value equities in CGT and to US growth equities in PNL

3) Gold in PNL.

I have about 20% of my portfolio in CGT but am slowly going to introduce PNL (or probably Troy Trojan) and make it something like a 60/40 split.

One thing to be aware of is that the allocations can vary significantly over time and I believe the published data on holdings can be several months out of date. Last year IIRC CGT had relatively few UK bonds.

Linton

MarcoM said:

Linton said:

MarcoM said:

aroominyork said:

Also worth pointing out a very different approach to equities. CGT focuses on value; PNL focuses on quality growth.

would buying both make sense or would it just be pointless duplication?

My relatively large holding in WP is split fairly evenly between Troy Trojan and CGT.  I done expect there will be much difference overall but it helps one sleep at night.   If your holding is a relatively small part of your total investments I see no point in having both but then there is no real downside either.

Do you also diversify between platforms or do you trust the platform you use to be solvent and viable for decades?

I trust my money is safe on any mainstream platform.  Whether the companies that currently run them will be doing so in 5-10 years time I have no idea and dont care.  I would guess that there will be mergers/takeovers.

I run 4 independent accounts  (his & hers ISAs, and his & hers SIPPs).  Since you cant transfer money or holdings between any pair of the accounts there is no particular advantage in keeping things together or disadvantage with not doing so.  These are held on 3 separate platforms mainly for historical reasons.  At some point this will be reduced to 2 when a SIPP is cleared out.  2 seems prudent so that things like local IT problems dont prevent us accessing our money.