Should I stick with this ISA fund?

1 Post
Newbie
Hi everyone,
I been having thoughts of switching ISA funds from Lindsell Train Global Equity Fund Class B. This is due to it's poor performance since Covid.I pay into this monthly as a savings pot for my daughter and will continue this for at least the next 10 years.
Any and all advice would be very appreciated
I been having thoughts of switching ISA funds from Lindsell Train Global Equity Fund Class B. This is due to it's poor performance since Covid.I pay into this monthly as a savings pot for my daughter and will continue this for at least the next 10 years.
Any and all advice would be very appreciated
0
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Passive funds don't focus (bar a few exceptions) on a particular investment style. You get what the market they are tracking does. Whether it's good, bad or indifferent. This can mean that with managed funds, you need to switch them around more frequently. However, timing that switch is notoriously difficult, if not impossible as you need hindsight to know when to do it. i.e. its easy to look back and see when the best point was but impossible to in advance when that point is.
So, sticking with passive funds is often best. Or a hybrid approach of core (passive) and satellite (managed).
It doesn’t look like a bad fund with some diversification in countries at least, but mostly large, growth companies which is a particular segment of the stock market as a whole.
One concern might be fees. You’re paying about 0.4%/year more than you might with a comparable cheaper fund. Get out your compound interest calculator! In investment fund investing, unlike most other aspects of spending, you get what you don’t pay for with investment funds. Morningstar research finds that fees are the best single predictor of how well you will do out of two or more comparable funds; the lower the fees the better you’ll do.
Another concern is that this is an actively managed fund. If you missed the news out of the last 30 years is that such funds almost always can’t do as well for you as a passive tracker. Hard to believe (a lot of people can’t, or won’t admit to it) but it seems pretty certain. Yours might be one of the lucky ones that keeps performing well as it has in comparison, but it’s taking a bet you don’t need to. You can get the returns of the stock market (are you entitled to any more by investing?) brainlessly with a tracker, and you never need to worry about last years return (unless it’s to suggest to you that you need to invest more (or less) to reach your target.
As to performance since the pandemic, try not to pay much attention to past performance because somewhat concentrated funds like this (they say themselves that it’s concentrated in holding relatively few stocks) have periods of years when they shine compared to other funds only to be followed by periods when they’re shaded by others. There’s good evidence that outperformance for several years, compared to comparable funds, is commonly followed by years of being outshone. By that measure, the time to get out would be when they’re on a high, not on a low. Secondly, a use to make of performance data is to examine why it is so, in this case it might be because growth stocks have taken a hammering recently and now it’s the turn of ‘value’ stocks to shine. Your fund is zero on ‘value’ stocks. It’s bad for you (or me) to chop and change our funds because of ‘bad performance’ when this sort of thing is happening, and the research suggests that it costs investors about 1.7%/year in lost returns compared with sticking with their choice through thick and thin; it’s called ‘mind the gap’ research, the gap between what the fund returns when left alone and what the fund returns those who invest in it (many of whom can’t stay the course).
Use an online compound interest calculator to get a clearer picture. Enter the present value of your fund, how much you add each year and assume an increase of 4%/year to see its value in 10 years if the costs can be reduced by 0.5%/year (giving and increase of 4.5%/year instead of 4%.
I see no reason to change the fund. It won't follow the indexes, possibly better possibly worse, but its investments arent of the type that may boom and bust.
The question is do you want to bet on growth funds in the current and potential future climate? Whether it did well or not 10 years ago is neither here nor there - the market we have today (and for the next 10) is vastly different to the last 10.
My own take is that a lot of quality growth stocks rerated upwards as interest rates rerated downward. This year the opposite has occurred but the fund is still expensive compared to the MSCI ACWI . I wouldn't want to make a bet on future direction of travel either for interest rates, or for the small subset of the global stock market that funds like this buy.
LTGE may well have returned 19%, but that is less than the average fund in it's category, and the index that Morningstar deem suitable. It is also less than the MSCI ACWI (23%) and importantly the MSCI World Quality Factor (30%).
There are other funds with the same/less tech which did better in 2019 and have done significantly better since.
In relative terms it was very poor. In absolute terms, if the alternative was cash under the sofa, then yes it was very good of course!