Rate my SIPP - ITV high conviction

Juno_Moneta

cfw1994 said:

Juno_Moneta said:

Yes absolutely agree - I do have some targets in mind and will take some profits off the table when the time is right. 

I’m more a believe in the method suggested by Lars - see https://kroijer.com 

Oh yes Lars! I remember watching his videos years ago about cheap equity index trackers. Smart guy and I’ve had plenty of time invested in VWRL for example. 👍

OldScientist

kempiejon said:

Missing out on the growth of the stock market?

Investing in index funds gathers the growth (or otherwise) of the stock market.

If I understand correctly, Bogle's central contention was that, ignoring fees, the average returns of all investors must equal the average returns of the stock market. Some stock pickers will do better than the market (by chance or skill) and some stock pickers will do worse (by chance or lack of skill). By picking an index fund one can obtain the average return (less fees) of the stock market - for most of us without the time or inclination for analysis on hundreds of stocks this is good enough.

cfw1994

Juno_Moneta said:

cfw1994 said:

Juno_Moneta said:

Yes absolutely agree - I do have some targets in mind and will take some profits off the table when the time is right. 

I’m more a believe in the method suggested by Lars - see https://kroijer.com 

Oh yes Lars! I remember watching his videos years ago about cheap equity index trackers. Smart guy and I’ve had plenty of time invested in VWRL for example. 👍

Indeed.
I still have a tilt towards US tech (mostly due to my carer & interests, I still believe in them), but broad world for the rest.

kempiejon

OldScientist said:

kempiejon said:

Missing out on the growth of the stock market?

Investing in index funds gathers the growth (or otherwise) of the stock market.

If I understand correctly, Bogle's central contention was that, ignoring fees, the average returns of all investors must equal the average returns of the stock market. Some stock pickers will do better than the market (by chance or skill) and some stock pickers will do worse (by chance or lack of skill). By picking an index fund one can obtain the average return (less fees) of the stock market - for most of us without the time or inclination for analysis on hundreds of stocks this is good enough.

Aye, good enough is good enough for us all. But that doesn't preculde investors from investing in specific stocks for whatever reason. The post I replied to alluded to the prevailing opinion round here that stock pickers lose their money.
That does many people a dissercive. It is not hard to pick and own stocks profitabaly and a diy approach can for save those index costs. The idea around here that the stock markets are a ponzi scheme run buy spivs and that all business quoted on a stock exchange are likely to fall to zero is false.
I perhaps exagerate.

julicorn

kempiejon said:

Missing out on the growth of the stock market?

No, investing in broad index funds / global trackers rather than stock-picking. People always think they're clever enough to pick 'winning' stocks, but even experts usually underperform compared to the overall economy.

julicorn

kempiejon said:

OldScientist said:

kempiejon said:

Missing out on the growth of the stock market?

Investing in index funds gathers the growth (or otherwise) of the stock market.

If I understand correctly, Bogle's central contention was that, ignoring fees, the average returns of all investors must equal the average returns of the stock market. Some stock pickers will do better than the market (by chance or skill) and some stock pickers will do worse (by chance or lack of skill). By picking an index fund one can obtain the average return (less fees) of the stock market - for most of us without the time or inclination for analysis on hundreds of stocks this is good enough.

Aye, good enough is good enough for us all. But that doesn't preculde investors from investing in specific stocks for whatever reason. The post I replied to alluded to the prevailing opinion round here that stock pickers lose their money.
That does many people a dissercive. It is not hard to pick and own stocks profitabaly and a diy approach can for save those index costs. The idea around here that the stock markets are a ponzi scheme run buy spivs and that all business quoted on a stock exchange are likely to fall to zero is false.
I perhaps exagerate.

Only just saw your additional reply here, sorry. 

I'm not saying (and have never 'alluded' that) all stock pickers lose their money, by design some of them are going to do well out of their picks. For the majority, however, just picking a passive index fund and sticking with it is likely to give them a better return and save them trading fees in the long run as well, while also being less work, and more easily accessible to a novice investor. 

FIREDreamer

cfw1994 said:

Juno_Moneta said:

Yes absolutely agree - I do have some targets in mind and will take some profits off the table when the time is right. 

Take profits off….& do what?
A pension is a tax shelter.
What you are doing is taking a punt on one company.
That is fine for “play money” (IMHO🤷‍♂️) - imagine sticking a couple of grand on Tesla/ Apple/ Amazon at the right time - but plain daft for a long term sustainable pension provision.  & why ITV? I can’t see them being the next Apple 👀

Apple, no.
Lemon maybe? 😂😂😂

Bravepants

FIREDreamer said:

penners324 said:

Juno_Moneta said:

The main thing that attracts me to ITV is that they have a ‘hidden’ asset “ITV Studios” which is generally thought to have a value on its own of around £3bn and is on the brink of being carved up (eg article today below). 

However the value (market cap) of the entire ITV Group (which owns it) is just £2.9bn currently. So by hidden I mean ‘value not recognised’. 

It reminds me of Wall Street asset stripping!

Well I think it’s worth a punt. Watch this space. 

https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadcast-international/potential-itvs-deal-supported-by-investors-report/5201770.article

For balance - there are plenty of reasons NOT to invest in ITV - eg some think ITV Studios isn’t worth that much. 

And with this position size, £30k up days are as common as £30k down days - so a strong stomach is needed. No share is up, up, up every day.

States on the article the share price has gone from 277p to 77p in 10 years.

If it carries on that trend....

You notice the difference in Corrie. Hardly anyone in the Rovers now as cast is paid per episode (and are complaining or leaving). The scripts and plots defy credulity. Look at a few years ago and it was packed. In real life, pub footfall hasn’t reduced that much. Emmerdale probably the same but I don’t watch that. The Queen Vic in Eastenders is full probably thanks to taxpayers’ money. ITV doesn’t look on the up to me which is a shame. Dead cat bounce maybe.

Indeed! David Platt a getaway driver?!  But it just serves as a mechanism to bring more trouble to the family, no matter how unbelievable! Likewise Max's hoody! Ridiculous.

kempiejon

@julicorn
Sorry I should have quoted directly "for the majority of investors not picking individual stocks at all is the right thing to do." I wrongly attributed that to the oft heard view on these boards that they would lose their money. I explored a counter.
Picking a pasive global is fine but it's not the only game in town. DIY isn't hard and can be cheaper or more expensive than an index. 
For the majority of investors, being scared of picking individual stocks is holding them back from exploring other options. How would one balance a portfolio for asset allocation if one just bought a global tracker? 100% equity is bold and risky, and volatile - but for some. The global market stock market is large, into the trillions I am sure but it is smaller than the total in bonds traded not represented in the types of passives generally mentioned. The global market stock is 66% USA which is then 20% in the tech tulips. That looks risky to me.
Diversity is the only free lunch in investing. Or so soeone said.
They are easy for the novice. I didnt want to stay a novice with something I was so focused on as financial independance and a lifetime of income supply.

julicorn

kempiejon said:

Sorry I should have quoted directly "for the majority of investors not picking individual stocks at all is the right thing to do." I perhaps wrongly attributed that to the oft heard view on these boards that they would lose their money. I explored a counter.
Picking a pasive global is fine but it's not the only game in town. DIY isn't hard and can be cheaper or more expensive than an index. 
For the majority of investors, being scared of picking individual stocks is holding them back from exploring other options. How would one balance a portfolio for asset allocation if one just bought a global tracker? 100% equity is bold and risky, and volatile - but for some. The global market stock market is large, into the trillions I am sure but it is smaller than the total in bonds traded not represented in the types of passives generally mentioned. The global market stock is 66% USA which is then 20% in the tech tulips. That looks risky to me.
Diversity is the only free lunch in investing. Or so soeone said.
They are easy for the novice. I didnt want to stay a novice with something I was so focused on as financial independance and a lifetime of income supply.

Just responding to a couple of your points here:
'How would one balance a portfolio for asset allocation'
- you wouldn't, because that in and of itself is a form of stock picking. It relies on your crystal ball telling you that certain asset types are likely to perform better in the future than they are right now, which is not the point of investing in a tracker. 
'100% equity is bold and risky, and volatile - but for some. The global market stock market is large, into the trillions I am sure but it is smaller than the total in bonds traded not represented in the types of passives generally mentioned.'
- Bond trackers exist too, it's perfectly possible to build a portfolio that is for example 60% equities and 40% bonds with trackers. 
'The global market stock is 66% USA which is then 20% in the tech tulips. That looks risky to me.'
- The large percentage of US stocks and tech stocks in these trackers simply reflect their current share of the global economy. It gets adjusted over time as companies gain or lose value. In 10 years time, it might be more US-heavy, it might be less US-heavy, but ultimately it's just tracking what's happening out there, rather than trying to predict it. Some might say tech companies are currently overvalued, others might say they are undervalued. There's only one way to find out, and that's wait and see. 
'Diversity is the only free lunch in investing. Or so soeone said.'
 - and diversity is exactly what these index trackers seek to achieve with their thousands of holdings. 

'They are easy for the novice. I didnt want to stay a novice with something I was so focused on as financial independance and a lifetime of income supply.'
- They're easy for a novice, but even pros don't usually manage to outperform the index trackers. It's not even as simple as half do better, half do worse - in reality, only a small proportion manage to outperform the index. 

As an example:
"Consider the nearly 3,900 actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds and exchange-traded funds tracked by investment researcher Morningstar. In calendar 2024, just 13.2% of these investments beat the S&P 500 SPX. Their average gain was 13.5%, barely half the 25% return of the S&P 500."
Source: https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20250118291/most-mutual-funds-dont-beat-the-market-but-whats-the-market-anyway