Funds vs individual Shares

Linton

sevenhills said:

kjs31 said:

Thanks. The 4 shares I bought were Glaxo, AstraZeneca, Prudential and CRH.

Glaxo - no information

AstraZeneca - buy

Prudential - buy, but with 2 pundits suggesting it will underperform.

CRH - buy

I assume they are the correct shares, I am often confused when more than one share is listed. I did think someone with more knowledge might post.

https://markets.investorschronicle.co.uk/data/equities/tearsheet/forecasts?s=83GI:LSE

https://markets.investorschronicle.co.uk/data/equities/tearsheet/forecasts?s=GSK:LSE

coastline

sevenhills said:

kjs31 said:

Thanks. The 4 shares I bought were Glaxo, AstraZeneca, Prudential and CRH.

Glaxo - no information

AstraZeneca - buy

Prudential - buy, but with 2 pundits suggesting it will underperform.

CRH - buy

I assume they are the correct shares, I am often confused when more than one share is listed. I did think someone with more knowledge might post.

https://markets.investorschronicle.co.uk/data/equities/tearsheet/forecasts?s=83GI:LSE

Glaxo link is below.

GSK plc (GSK:LSE) Share price, analysis, charts, news, dividends, EPS forecasts, annual reports and RNS - Investors Chronicle

From Consensus recommendation the majority of analysts are HOLD. What does that really mean ? I'll guess and say undecided and neither good or bad ? Who knows it's not as if they're all saying strong BUY or SELL. So we ain't getting any clues. Even if they were all BUY the shares would probably have moved up rather quickly and in some cases 20/30% in weeks. Now you could argue  " missed the recent boat " in the short term ( months here not years ). So you BUY then the shares fall 20% , why ? because that's what happens. Profit taking or general market moves. Just like funds you've got to hang in years in general or trade them. End of the day GSK is a solid company but still the volatility remains just like the rest.
From the link I see the historical information and the forecasts are pretty flat ( look at orange and green bars ) . In some cases from 2019 -2024 not much difference. Maybe that's why we get a chart like below stretching back 10 years. ? If you're lucky or nimble you'll buy one of the dips and get off to a good start. Buy the dip today at 1370 you could argue but it's always a gamble. Always check the forward earnings forecasts is what I've learnt over the years . Good luck.  

GSK PLC, UK:GSK Advanced Chart - (LON) UK:GSK, GSK PLC Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)

In the case of CRH there's BUY recommendations and in the link forward information is positive. ( green above orange) A bit better then.

 CRH PLC (CRH:LSE) Share price, analysis, charts, news, dividends, EPS forecasts, annual reports and RNS - Investors Chronicle

Again it's all about buying the dips unless you're holding years.

CRH PLC, UK:CRH Advanced Chart - (LON) UK:CRH, CRH PLC Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)

CRH PLC, UK:CRH Advanced Chart - (LON) UK:CRH, CRH PLC Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)

wmb194

coastline said:

sevenhills said:

kjs31 said:

Thanks. The 4 shares I bought were Glaxo, AstraZeneca, Prudential and CRH.

Glaxo - no information

AstraZeneca - buy

Prudential - buy, but with 2 pundits suggesting it will underperform.

CRH - buy

I assume they are the correct shares, I am often confused when more than one share is listed. I did think someone with more knowledge might post.

https://markets.investorschronicle.co.uk/data/equities/tearsheet/forecasts?s=83GI:LSE

Glaxo link is below.

GSK plc (GSK:LSE) Share price, analysis, charts, news, dividends, EPS forecasts, annual reports and RNS - Investors Chronicle

From Consensus recommendation the majority of analysts are HOLD. What does that really mean ? I'll guess and say undecided and neither good or bad ? Who knows it's not as if they're all saying strong BUY or SELL. So we ain't getting any clues. Even if they were all BUY the shares would probably have moved up rather quickly and in some cases 20/30% in weeks. Now you could argue  " missed the recent boat " in the short term ( months here not years ). So you BUY then the shares fall 20% , why ? because that's what happens. Profit taking or general market moves. Just like funds you've got to hang in years in general or trade them. End of the day GSK is a solid company but still the volatility remains just like the rest.
From the link I see the historical information and the forecasts are pretty flat ( look at orange and green bars ) . In some cases from 2019 -2024 not much difference. Maybe that's why we get a chart like below stretching back 10 years. ? If you're lucky or nimble you'll buy one of the dips and get off to a good start. Buy the dip today at 1370 you could argue but it's always a gamble. Always check the forward earnings forecasts is what I've learnt over the years . Good luck.  

GSK PLC, UK:GSK Advanced Chart - (LON) UK:GSK, GSK PLC Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)

In the case of CRH there's BUY recommendations and in the link forward information is positive. ( green above orange) A bit better then.

 CRH PLC (CRH:LSE) Share price, analysis, charts, news, dividends, EPS forecasts, annual reports and RNS - Investors Chronicle

Again it's all about buying the dips unless you're holding years.

CRH PLC, UK:CRH Advanced Chart - (LON) UK:CRH, CRH PLC Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)

CRH PLC, UK:CRH Advanced Chart - (LON) UK:CRH, CRH PLC Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)

I forget its name but GSK is subdued at the moment because it's under the pall of lawsuits in the US over a drug that's no longer for sale because authorities decided it may no longer be safe. So far cases have been in GSK's and the other defendants' favour but there needs to be more clarity on the potential outcome.

Qyburn

kjs31 said:

... I have seen a Schroders Personal Wealth consultant about moving it to them and moving more into equities as it’s been quite bond heavy which has affected performance. 

Just out of interest was that an introduction from Lloyds Bank? Our account manager wanted to set up a call for us, but in the end I opted out. If I remember correctly they use their own funds, is that correct?

Richard1212

wmb194 said:

Richard1212 said:

I am a great believer in buying individual company shares------rather than  using "Funds".

But, as everyone has already said, you have to do a lot of hard-slogging work and investigation to start off your portfolio. Assuming you gain more expertise , far more than Motley Fool ( !!! ), it is then best to hand over to a portfolio manager for day-to-day time-consuming detail. Of course, it all depends on how rich you are : you have to cut your cloth etc.

But now that I have a very large portfolio across 9 market sectors and it is managed expertly, I am even more sure that I was wholly correct in purchasing individual shares rather than trusting to Funds that I have no control over in terms of my or my advisors' own investigations and expertise.

It actually isn't that hard to build your own 'fund' e.g., find one or more you like and simply buy some or all of shares in the companies of which it's or they're comprised. With the zero commission brokers it's as cheap as it's ever been to do it.

It's a trifle more difficult than the way your simplistic post suggests, as you should know if you ever built up a portfolio of 50 or 60 companies and then tried to run them yourself on the cheap. But, hey, if you work full time on it and keep it very simple, I'm sure you're an expert on the workings, hierarchy and detailed minutiae of every company. Gosh, how I envy your skill.

InvesterJones

Richard1212 said:

wmb194 said:

Richard1212 said:

I am a great believer in buying individual company shares------rather than  using "Funds".

But, as everyone has already said, you have to do a lot of hard-slogging work and investigation to start off your portfolio. Assuming you gain more expertise , far more than Motley Fool ( !!! ), it is then best to hand over to a portfolio manager for day-to-day time-consuming detail. Of course, it all depends on how rich you are : you have to cut your cloth etc.

But now that I have a very large portfolio across 9 market sectors and it is managed expertly, I am even more sure that I was wholly correct in purchasing individual shares rather than trusting to Funds that I have no control over in terms of my or my advisors' own investigations and expertise.

It actually isn't that hard to build your own 'fund' e.g., find one or more you like and simply buy some or all of shares in the companies of which it's or they're comprised. With the zero commission brokers it's as cheap as it's ever been to do it.

It's a trifle more difficult than the way your simplistic post suggests, as you should know if you ever built up a portfolio of 50 or 60 companies and then tried to run them yourself on the cheap. But, hey, if you work full time on it and keep it very simple, I'm sure you're an expert on the workings, hierarchy and detailed minutiae of every company. Gosh, how I envy your skill.

When you're replicating another fund manager's choice, as wmb194 suggested, you don't need to do any of that yourself.

wmb194

Richard1212 said:

wmb194 said:

Richard1212 said:

I am a great believer in buying individual company shares------rather than  using "Funds".

But, as everyone has already said, you have to do a lot of hard-slogging work and investigation to start off your portfolio. Assuming you gain more expertise , far more than Motley Fool ( !!! ), it is then best to hand over to a portfolio manager for day-to-day time-consuming detail. Of course, it all depends on how rich you are : you have to cut your cloth etc.

But now that I have a very large portfolio across 9 market sectors and it is managed expertly, I am even more sure that I was wholly correct in purchasing individual shares rather than trusting to Funds that I have no control over in terms of my or my advisors' own investigations and expertise.

It actually isn't that hard to build your own 'fund' e.g., find one or more you like and simply buy some or all of shares in the companies of which it's or they're comprised. With the zero commission brokers it's as cheap as it's ever been to do it.

It's a trifle more difficult than the way your simplistic post suggests, as you should know if you ever built up a portfolio of 50 or 60 companies and then tried to run them yourself on the cheap. But, hey, if you work full time on it and keep it very simple, I'm sure you're an expert on the workings, hierarchy and detailed minutiae of every company. Gosh, how I envy your skill.

Hah hah, it really isn't that hard. If it's e.g., a portfolio of blue chips it won't change that often, over time you learn their ins and outs, it's pretty easy to keep track of them as they're regularly reported on in the media and if you're basing your portfolio on a copy of a fund(s) you can also keep track of the fund manager commentaries.

In a recent post on another thread you mentioned owning, "Vodaphone." That's a terrible company.

sevenhills

wmb194 said:

In a recent post on another thread you mentioned owning, "Vodaphone." That's a terrible company.

Vodafone shares are trading at prices not seen for 25 years, Motley Fool says it might be worth a punt. It is the type of share I might buy 

In the UK, new chief executive Margherita Della Valle has agreed the outline of a merger with rival network Three. If the deal is approved by the regulator, the combined business would have a 30% market share and could generate cost savings of up to £700m a year.

wmb194

sevenhills said:

wmb194 said:

In a recent post on another thread you mentioned owning, "Vodaphone." That's a terrible company.

Vodafone shares are trading at prices not seen for 25 years, Motley Fool says it might be worth a punt. It is the type of share I might buy 

In the UK, new chief executive Margherita Della Valle has agreed the outline of a merger with rival network Three. If the deal is approved by the regulator, the combined business would have a 30% market share and could generate cost savings of up to £700m a year.

Uh-huh. It takes two opinions to make a market but it's still a terrible company and Germany is Vodafone's most important market and it isn't doing very well there. Btw, Motley Fool says almost everything's worth a punt so I'd be careful listening to its suggestions.

Albermarle

sevenhills said:

wmb194 said:

In a recent post on another thread you mentioned owning, "Vodaphone." That's a terrible company.

Vodafone shares are trading at prices not seen for 25 years, Motley Fool says it might be worth a punt. It is the type of share I might buy 

In the UK, new chief executive Margherita Della Valle has agreed the outline of a merger with rival network Three. If the deal is approved by the regulator, the combined business would have a 30% market share and could generate cost savings of up to £700m a year.

Although mergers have a horrible habit of not producing the desired results.