FTSE100 best single year return since 2009.

[Deleted User]

Veloflyer said:

  

I'm 61 and perhaps cannot afford a similar risk to you regarding concentration on markets outwith the US to such an extent as I believe this does offer a greater risk than global trackers like VWRP for instance. I do appreciate it may offer greater growth but I am prepared to sacrifice that for lower risk. Each to his own though.

I hear much about the US being over-valued, but my trackers and the S&P are still on the rise and I see nothing at present that demonstrates that it will all come crashing down some time in the near future.

Historic metrics are pretty meaningless. Not even a guide. I have no crystal ball so offer no alternatives to what will happen in the future. AlI I can do is diversify, consider gilts, annuity, cash buffer in case of a crash, read up on what Buffet and others have to say and pray to whichever deity  is flavour of the month.            

If it helps at all, I am 75.

I  don't understand your comment about markets concentration, there's none whatsoever in my portfiolio.

Volatility is an historic metric, do you really think that's not a useful metric to understand?

It will be interesting to revisit this topic with you, in say six months.

Altior

Veloflyer said:

chiang_mai said:

Veloflyer said:

I am largely in passive global tracker funds plus a passive S&P tracker - CSP1 etc. By their nature heavily US weighted. I am not a great fan of using sentiment or emotion in deciding where to put my hard earned, but I do appreciate the effect of perception - which has a similar esoteric feel. I am also not a great fan of looking at CAPE either - mainly as it is historically based data. I am still largely of the opinion that I would be foolish to deviate the majority of funds away from the US - given most of the world's capital is tied up there, they are by far the largest economy and they have the clout to match.         

My objective each year is to realise a 12% return on my investments, once I've done that I can derisk and take things easy for the year, I've done similar for many years. I can chose to make that 12% in any one of a number of different markets, the UK, EM, Japan and Europe, all offer opportunities. Last year, for the first time, I accepted that I didn't need to have 60% of my equities invested in the US, just because the US represents 60% of the global market. Instead, I invested across a range of less expensive markets that aren't over priced and that don't carry the same risks plus I sleep well. I'm still invested in the US but only via a very diluted All World Index and only then, to a lesser degree, I traded in my S&P Index because when the markets fall, there's only one way that can go. My EM, Japan and EU funds have EACH returned over 29% over the past twelve months, there are plenty of non-US options out there, ones that don't have concentration risk and sky high valuations. 

Many novice investors have a distrust of historic metrics , at least that's what many say. But wothout historic data, what else is there, perception, emotion, Bloomberg tips! Historic data is far from perfect but it does offer important clues, for those who take the time to study the data and understand it.
  

I'm 61 and perhaps cannot afford a similar risk to you regarding concentration on markets outwith the US to such an extent as I believe this does offer a greater risk than global trackers like VWRP for instance. I do appreciate it may offer greater growth but I am prepared to sacrifice that for lower risk. Each to his own though.

I hear much about the US being over-valued, but my trackers and the S&P are still on the rise and I see nothing at present that demonstrates that it will all come crashing down some time in the near future.

Historic metrics are pretty meaningless. Not even a guide. I have no crystal ball so offer no alternatives to what will happen in the future. AlI I can do is diversify, consider gilts, annuity, cash buffer in case of a crash, read up on what Buffet and others have to say and pray to whichever deity  is flavour of the month.            

It's not really about what others are saying, per se, in my view. 

However, if you are invested or investing more in something that doesn't have a backstop value, it must be based on something? You must feel that they represent value, for some underlying reason. At its root, investing is a risk judgement. So for you, the upside it still worth the risk. But on what measurable basis? 

Very rarely do I watch Bloomberg, but today they were carrying a story that the US government is trying to get lenders to put new money into the economy, bypassing the Fed. I'm afraid I don't know the specifics, but it sounded like QE via the backdoor. Extremely concerning, if so, I'd have thought. Bloomberg has a strong political tilt. But it's an allegation I'd like to dig into.

talexuser

Altior said:

That the UK has done badly cannot be denied.

I'll give it one last go.

Practically every other region has 'done badly' when compared to the US, since 2016.

It has practically nothing to do with the EU. Whatsoever. 

It has almost everything to do with a handful of mega caps, based in the US.

If you think 'we' would be positively booming if we were still EU, you would be wrong. You got lucky. 

Nowhere have I said I think we would be booming if still in the EU, you keep attibuting to things I never said - a poor sign of reasoned argument  So what if other regions did badly? the change was on the basis the whole would do better then us, and it did.

I just disagree, an informed decision that turns out to be correct is not luck. Whether the result is 1% better than before or 100% better is immaterial, as is where the result comes from, it remains better than before.

Luck is closing your eyes and putting a pin in a list of random funds and getting a better return.

Altior

talexuser said:

Altior said:

That the UK has done badly cannot be denied.

I'll give it one last go.

Practically every other region has 'done badly' when compared to the US, since 2016.

It has practically nothing to do with the EU. Whatsoever. 

It has almost everything to do with a handful of mega caps, based in the US.

If you think 'we' would be positively booming if we were still EU, you would be wrong. You got lucky. 

Nowhere have I said I think we would be booming if still in the EU, you keep attibuting to things I never said - a poor sign of reasoned argument  So what if other regions did badly? the change was on the basis the whole would do better then us, and it did.

I just disagree, an informed decision that turns out to be correct is not luck. Whether the result is 1% better than before or 100% better is immaterial, as is where the result comes from, it remains better than before.

Luck is closing your eyes and putting a pin in a list of random funds and getting a better return.

This is what you posted, and the genesis of the sub debate on this thread:

I sold out of the UK soon after the Brexit vote and went World tracker exUK plus various global trusts and it was the best decision I made in 40 years of investing compared to tracking the funds I would have been in staying put. Now there's a hefty lump in capital preservation after some excellent gains... this toppiness can't last forever.

Palpably you are claiming that 'best decision I made in 40 years of investing' was due to the Brexit vote. I'm stating that could well be true, but if so it wasn't due to the impact of the Brexit vote on the holdings that you sold out of, or switched into. ie the Brexit vote may be why you changed your positions, but the outcome wasn't contingent on the impact of the vote. Therefore, it was luck.

You might bet the house on red on the roulette wheel due to wearing a red tie that night. That ball landing on red might be the best thing that happened to you, betting on red might have been the best decision you ever made. The colour of your tie might be why you picked red, but the ball didn't land on red due to the colour of the tie you'd selected to wear that day. You'd be just lucky that your red tie was the first one you saw when looking for a tie to wear. 

Cus

masonic said:

talexuser said:

Altior said:

talexuser said:

It's nothing to do with US stocks doing well, no-one could predict that. It's the judgement the UK would do less well than before, which has proven so to be.
I never said anywhere I was 100% UK so that is untrue.
UK outflows in 2016 set a new record, so saying years before anything changed after the brexit vote is clearly not so..

Your posts don't make too much sense. Global stocks have 'outperformed' due to the US.

If you were global with no bias, and went global ex UK, the difference is minimal.

Markets were generally betting on a remain result, and they got it wrong (where Brexit was perceived to have an impact). So you would have to take any measure back to well before the outcome of the vote was concerned. Of course currency speculation played a big part.

Lastly, if the EU is 'the answer', did you have any bias to countries that remain part of it? 

You keep proposing straw man arguments  which have nothing to do with what I posted... if I was this and if I was that, if I had bias to something or other. That the UK has done badly cannot be denied. Before I had significant home bias, removing this and going global ex UK has done much better than if I had stayed where I was. Where the better results came from is immaterial, it was a good call to drop the UK compared to other markets. There was a record outflow from UK after the vote which shows a lot of other people came to the same conclusion. 

It is incorrect to assume that a country has done "badly" because there exists a country that has done better. The US equity market has outperformed historical norms by an exceptional margin. It is the outlier. Mainly due to its sectoral composition.

You keep stating there was a record outflow from the UK after the vote. This makes no sense. The stockmarket is a place where shares are exchanged. For every seller there is a buyer. Gains and losses are determined by the price market participants are willing to trade. There is no evidence of any adverse repricing of UK equities following the referendum vote. If I am missing it, please point it out on my chart. In the absence of a precipitous drop, all that can be said is that trading volumes were in the normal range and there were as many shares bought as sold.

I think he meant record outflow from funds that specifically intend to invest in the ftse100 and available specifically to UK investors.  I guess a lot of UK investors sold their investment in those UK focussed funds available to UK investors and took that cash and invested in US focused funds available to UK investors.  So even if prices stayed the same, the total fund value of those types of funds went down, perhaps transferred to non retail funds, individual shares buyers, hedge funds, maybe funds domiciled in other countries that UK people can't access

masonic

Cus said:

masonic said:

talexuser said:

Altior said:

talexuser said:

It's nothing to do with US stocks doing well, no-one could predict that. It's the judgement the UK would do less well than before, which has proven so to be.
I never said anywhere I was 100% UK so that is untrue.
UK outflows in 2016 set a new record, so saying years before anything changed after the brexit vote is clearly not so..

Your posts don't make too much sense. Global stocks have 'outperformed' due to the US.

If you were global with no bias, and went global ex UK, the difference is minimal.

Markets were generally betting on a remain result, and they got it wrong (where Brexit was perceived to have an impact). So you would have to take any measure back to well before the outcome of the vote was concerned. Of course currency speculation played a big part.

Lastly, if the EU is 'the answer', did you have any bias to countries that remain part of it? 

You keep proposing straw man arguments  which have nothing to do with what I posted... if I was this and if I was that, if I had bias to something or other. That the UK has done badly cannot be denied. Before I had significant home bias, removing this and going global ex UK has done much better than if I had stayed where I was. Where the better results came from is immaterial, it was a good call to drop the UK compared to other markets. There was a record outflow from UK after the vote which shows a lot of other people came to the same conclusion. 

It is incorrect to assume that a country has done "badly" because there exists a country that has done better. The US equity market has outperformed historical norms by an exceptional margin. It is the outlier. Mainly due to its sectoral composition.

You keep stating there was a record outflow from the UK after the vote. This makes no sense. The stockmarket is a place where shares are exchanged. For every seller there is a buyer. Gains and losses are determined by the price market participants are willing to trade. There is no evidence of any adverse repricing of UK equities following the referendum vote. If I am missing it, please point it out on my chart. In the absence of a precipitous drop, all that can be said is that trading volumes were in the normal range and there were as many shares bought as sold.

I think he meant record outflow from funds that specifically intend to invest in the ftse100 and available specifically to UK investors.  I guess a lot of UK investors sold their investment in those UK focussed funds available to UK investors and took that cash and invested in US focused funds available to UK investors.  So even if prices stayed the same, the total fund value of those types of funds went down, perhaps transferred to non retail funds, individual shares buyers, hedge funds, maybe funds domiciled in other countries that UK people can't access

The trend of UK retail investors shunning the poor returns of the FTSE100 in favour of the higher returns of the S&P500 has been driven by the global dominance of US tech. Also driven by the influence of social media, which often focuses on the US. Many a thread on this forum shows a different rationale for why people have focused on the US market. If there's evidence that something happened suddenly around 2016 that's not part of a longer trend, then I'd like to see it. To complicate matters, there were actually large inflows into UK index tracker funds following the Covid dip (and around the time the UK actually left the EU) as investors rotated into UK value. I don't think that was "because of Brexit" any more than the outflows throughout the 2010s.

As you say, when retail investors sell funds, there will be institutional/international buyers and other retail investors picking up the slack, and if they are taking place in a generally rising market as was the case around 2016, it is merely part of the cut and thrust of the market.

Ultimately, the underperformance of the FTSE100 began a long time before 2016 and people noticed and started to take action. While I have no personal or political affinity for the events of 2016, I find suggestion that the FTSE100's performance is attributable to that factor is a case of correlation without causation. The UK’s lack of a heavy technology sector compared to the US began long before the referendum and remains a much more plausible driver of the returns we see today. It's a similar case for other non-US (and non-EU markets).

Cus

masonic said:

Cus said:

masonic said:

talexuser said:

Altior said:

talexuser said:

It's nothing to do with US stocks doing well, no-one could predict that. It's the judgement the UK would do less well than before, which has proven so to be.
I never said anywhere I was 100% UK so that is untrue.
UK outflows in 2016 set a new record, so saying years before anything changed after the brexit vote is clearly not so..

Your posts don't make too much sense. Global stocks have 'outperformed' due to the US.

If you were global with no bias, and went global ex UK, the difference is minimal.

Markets were generally betting on a remain result, and they got it wrong (where Brexit was perceived to have an impact). So you would have to take any measure back to well before the outcome of the vote was concerned. Of course currency speculation played a big part.

Lastly, if the EU is 'the answer', did you have any bias to countries that remain part of it? 

You keep proposing straw man arguments  which have nothing to do with what I posted... if I was this and if I was that, if I had bias to something or other. That the UK has done badly cannot be denied. Before I had significant home bias, removing this and going global ex UK has done much better than if I had stayed where I was. Where the better results came from is immaterial, it was a good call to drop the UK compared to other markets. There was a record outflow from UK after the vote which shows a lot of other people came to the same conclusion. 

It is incorrect to assume that a country has done "badly" because there exists a country that has done better. The US equity market has outperformed historical norms by an exceptional margin. It is the outlier. Mainly due to its sectoral composition.

You keep stating there was a record outflow from the UK after the vote. This makes no sense. The stockmarket is a place where shares are exchanged. For every seller there is a buyer. Gains and losses are determined by the price market participants are willing to trade. There is no evidence of any adverse repricing of UK equities following the referendum vote. If I am missing it, please point it out on my chart. In the absence of a precipitous drop, all that can be said is that trading volumes were in the normal range and there were as many shares bought as sold.

I think he meant record outflow from funds that specifically intend to invest in the ftse100 and available specifically to UK investors.  I guess a lot of UK investors sold their investment in those UK focussed funds available to UK investors and took that cash and invested in US focused funds available to UK investors.  So even if prices stayed the same, the total fund value of those types of funds went down, perhaps transferred to non retail funds, individual shares buyers, hedge funds, maybe funds domiciled in other countries that UK people can't access

The trend of UK retail investors shunning the poor returns of the FTSE100 in favour of the higher returns of the S&P500 has been driven by the global dominance of US tech. Also driven by the influence of social media, which often focuses on the US. Many a thread on this forum shows a different rationale for why people have focused on the US market. If there's evidence that something happened suddenly around 2016 that's not part of a longer trend, then I'd like to see it. To complicate matters, there were actually large inflows into UK index tracker funds following the Covid dip (and around the time the UK actually left the EU) as investors rotated into UK value. I don't think that was "because of Brexit" any more than the outflows throughout the 2010s.

As you say, when retail investors sell funds, there will be institutional/international buyers and other retail investors picking up the slack, and if they are taking place in a generally rising market as was the case around 2016, it is merely part of the cut and thrust of the market.

Ultimately, the underperformance of the FTSE100 began a long time before 2016 and people noticed and started to take action. While I have no personal or political affinity for the events of 2016, I find suggestion that the FTSE100's performance is attributable to that factor is a case of correlation without causation. The UK’s lack of a heavy technology sector compared to the US began long before the referendum and remains a much more plausible driver of the returns we see today. It's a similar case for other non-US (and non-EU markets).

No arguments there, I was not suggesting that Brexit etc was 'the' reason for this so called 'record outflow' ( and those in the media claiming that, show limited understanding of the nuances), but the concept of a 'record outflow' occuring during that period was still valid as per the poster imo so thought I should offer that opinion.  It's likely that the perception of the Brexit impact, real or not, has added to those UK investors feeling that there is more 'good reason' to head over to the US boom.

masonic

Cus said:

masonic said:

Cus said:

masonic said:

talexuser said:

Altior said:

talexuser said:

It's nothing to do with US stocks doing well, no-one could predict that. It's the judgement the UK would do less well than before, which has proven so to be.
I never said anywhere I was 100% UK so that is untrue.
UK outflows in 2016 set a new record, so saying years before anything changed after the brexit vote is clearly not so..

Your posts don't make too much sense. Global stocks have 'outperformed' due to the US.

If you were global with no bias, and went global ex UK, the difference is minimal.

Markets were generally betting on a remain result, and they got it wrong (where Brexit was perceived to have an impact). So you would have to take any measure back to well before the outcome of the vote was concerned. Of course currency speculation played a big part.

Lastly, if the EU is 'the answer', did you have any bias to countries that remain part of it? 

You keep proposing straw man arguments  which have nothing to do with what I posted... if I was this and if I was that, if I had bias to something or other. That the UK has done badly cannot be denied. Before I had significant home bias, removing this and going global ex UK has done much better than if I had stayed where I was. Where the better results came from is immaterial, it was a good call to drop the UK compared to other markets. There was a record outflow from UK after the vote which shows a lot of other people came to the same conclusion. 

It is incorrect to assume that a country has done "badly" because there exists a country that has done better. The US equity market has outperformed historical norms by an exceptional margin. It is the outlier. Mainly due to its sectoral composition.

You keep stating there was a record outflow from the UK after the vote. This makes no sense. The stockmarket is a place where shares are exchanged. For every seller there is a buyer. Gains and losses are determined by the price market participants are willing to trade. There is no evidence of any adverse repricing of UK equities following the referendum vote. If I am missing it, please point it out on my chart. In the absence of a precipitous drop, all that can be said is that trading volumes were in the normal range and there were as many shares bought as sold.

I think he meant record outflow from funds that specifically intend to invest in the ftse100 and available specifically to UK investors.  I guess a lot of UK investors sold their investment in those UK focussed funds available to UK investors and took that cash and invested in US focused funds available to UK investors.  So even if prices stayed the same, the total fund value of those types of funds went down, perhaps transferred to non retail funds, individual shares buyers, hedge funds, maybe funds domiciled in other countries that UK people can't access

The trend of UK retail investors shunning the poor returns of the FTSE100 in favour of the higher returns of the S&P500 has been driven by the global dominance of US tech. Also driven by the influence of social media, which often focuses on the US. Many a thread on this forum shows a different rationale for why people have focused on the US market. If there's evidence that something happened suddenly around 2016 that's not part of a longer trend, then I'd like to see it. To complicate matters, there were actually large inflows into UK index tracker funds following the Covid dip (and around the time the UK actually left the EU) as investors rotated into UK value. I don't think that was "because of Brexit" any more than the outflows throughout the 2010s.

As you say, when retail investors sell funds, there will be institutional/international buyers and other retail investors picking up the slack, and if they are taking place in a generally rising market as was the case around 2016, it is merely part of the cut and thrust of the market.

Ultimately, the underperformance of the FTSE100 began a long time before 2016 and people noticed and started to take action. While I have no personal or political affinity for the events of 2016, I find suggestion that the FTSE100's performance is attributable to that factor is a case of correlation without causation. The UK’s lack of a heavy technology sector compared to the US began long before the referendum and remains a much more plausible driver of the returns we see today. It's a similar case for other non-US (and non-EU markets).

No arguments there, I was not suggesting that Brexit etc was 'the' reason for this so called 'record outflow' ( and those in the media claiming that, show limited understanding of the nuances), but the concept of a 'record outflow' occuring during that period was still valid as per the poster imo so thought I should offer that opinion.  It's likely that the perception of the Brexit impact, real or not, has added to those UK investors feeling that there is more 'good reason' to head over to the US boom.

From what I can surmise from IA data (see https://www.theia.org/industry-data/fund-statistics/retail-sales/20 ), equity funds in general (not just those focusing on UK equities) saw significant net outflows in 2016 of £8.8bn, but this was flanked by net inflows of £7.2bn in 2015 and £9.6bn in 2017, and has subsequently been dwarfed by outflows totalling nearly £50bn since 2022. It would be interesting to see the decade before that for comparison.

Cus

masonic said:

Cus said:

masonic said:

Cus said:

masonic said:

talexuser said:

Altior said:

talexuser said:

It's nothing to do with US stocks doing well, no-one could predict that. It's the judgement the UK would do less well than before, which has proven so to be.
I never said anywhere I was 100% UK so that is untrue.
UK outflows in 2016 set a new record, so saying years before anything changed after the brexit vote is clearly not so..

Your posts don't make too much sense. Global stocks have 'outperformed' due to the US.

If you were global with no bias, and went global ex UK, the difference is minimal.

Markets were generally betting on a remain result, and they got it wrong (where Brexit was perceived to have an impact). So you would have to take any measure back to well before the outcome of the vote was concerned. Of course currency speculation played a big part.

Lastly, if the EU is 'the answer', did you have any bias to countries that remain part of it? 

You keep proposing straw man arguments  which have nothing to do with what I posted... if I was this and if I was that, if I had bias to something or other. That the UK has done badly cannot be denied. Before I had significant home bias, removing this and going global ex UK has done much better than if I had stayed where I was. Where the better results came from is immaterial, it was a good call to drop the UK compared to other markets. There was a record outflow from UK after the vote which shows a lot of other people came to the same conclusion. 

It is incorrect to assume that a country has done "badly" because there exists a country that has done better. The US equity market has outperformed historical norms by an exceptional margin. It is the outlier. Mainly due to its sectoral composition.

You keep stating there was a record outflow from the UK after the vote. This makes no sense. The stockmarket is a place where shares are exchanged. For every seller there is a buyer. Gains and losses are determined by the price market participants are willing to trade. There is no evidence of any adverse repricing of UK equities following the referendum vote. If I am missing it, please point it out on my chart. In the absence of a precipitous drop, all that can be said is that trading volumes were in the normal range and there were as many shares bought as sold.

I think he meant record outflow from funds that specifically intend to invest in the ftse100 and available specifically to UK investors.  I guess a lot of UK investors sold their investment in those UK focussed funds available to UK investors and took that cash and invested in US focused funds available to UK investors.  So even if prices stayed the same, the total fund value of those types of funds went down, perhaps transferred to non retail funds, individual shares buyers, hedge funds, maybe funds domiciled in other countries that UK people can't access

The trend of UK retail investors shunning the poor returns of the FTSE100 in favour of the higher returns of the S&P500 has been driven by the global dominance of US tech. Also driven by the influence of social media, which often focuses on the US. Many a thread on this forum shows a different rationale for why people have focused on the US market. If there's evidence that something happened suddenly around 2016 that's not part of a longer trend, then I'd like to see it. To complicate matters, there were actually large inflows into UK index tracker funds following the Covid dip (and around the time the UK actually left the EU) as investors rotated into UK value. I don't think that was "because of Brexit" any more than the outflows throughout the 2010s.

As you say, when retail investors sell funds, there will be institutional/international buyers and other retail investors picking up the slack, and if they are taking place in a generally rising market as was the case around 2016, it is merely part of the cut and thrust of the market.

Ultimately, the underperformance of the FTSE100 began a long time before 2016 and people noticed and started to take action. While I have no personal or political affinity for the events of 2016, I find suggestion that the FTSE100's performance is attributable to that factor is a case of correlation without causation. The UK’s lack of a heavy technology sector compared to the US began long before the referendum and remains a much more plausible driver of the returns we see today. It's a similar case for other non-US (and non-EU markets).

No arguments there, I was not suggesting that Brexit etc was 'the' reason for this so called 'record outflow' ( and those in the media claiming that, show limited understanding of the nuances), but the concept of a 'record outflow' occuring during that period was still valid as per the poster imo so thought I should offer that opinion.  It's likely that the perception of the Brexit impact, real or not, has added to those UK investors feeling that there is more 'good reason' to head over to the US boom.

From what I can surmise from IA data (see https://www.theia.org/industry-data/fund-statistics/retail-sales/20 ), equity funds in general (not just those focusing on UK equities) saw significant net outflows in 2016 of £8.8bn, but this was flanked by net inflows of £7.2bn in 2015 and £9.6bn in 2017, and has subsequently been dwarfed by outflows totalling nearly £50bn since 2022. It would be interesting to see the decade before that for comparison.

Lies, damn lies and statistics comes to mind.  I'm sure that in 2016, certain media providers with bias looked for a way to 'inform' people that Brexit was the reason for a 'record outflow' without actually understanding the underlying data and multiple causes. Confirmation bias and all that..

Altior

Cus said:

masonic said:

Cus said:

masonic said:

talexuser said:

Altior said:

talexuser said:

It's nothing to do with US stocks doing well, no-one could predict that. It's the judgement the UK would do less well than before, which has proven so to be.
I never said anywhere I was 100% UK so that is untrue.
UK outflows in 2016 set a new record, so saying years before anything changed after the brexit vote is clearly not so..

Your posts don't make too much sense. Global stocks have 'outperformed' due to the US.

If you were global with no bias, and went global ex UK, the difference is minimal.

Markets were generally betting on a remain result, and they got it wrong (where Brexit was perceived to have an impact). So you would have to take any measure back to well before the outcome of the vote was concerned. Of course currency speculation played a big part.

Lastly, if the EU is 'the answer', did you have any bias to countries that remain part of it? 

You keep proposing straw man arguments  which have nothing to do with what I posted... if I was this and if I was that, if I had bias to something or other. That the UK has done badly cannot be denied. Before I had significant home bias, removing this and going global ex UK has done much better than if I had stayed where I was. Where the better results came from is immaterial, it was a good call to drop the UK compared to other markets. There was a record outflow from UK after the vote which shows a lot of other people came to the same conclusion. 

It is incorrect to assume that a country has done "badly" because there exists a country that has done better. The US equity market has outperformed historical norms by an exceptional margin. It is the outlier. Mainly due to its sectoral composition.

You keep stating there was a record outflow from the UK after the vote. This makes no sense. The stockmarket is a place where shares are exchanged. For every seller there is a buyer. Gains and losses are determined by the price market participants are willing to trade. There is no evidence of any adverse repricing of UK equities following the referendum vote. If I am missing it, please point it out on my chart. In the absence of a precipitous drop, all that can be said is that trading volumes were in the normal range and there were as many shares bought as sold.

I think he meant record outflow from funds that specifically intend to invest in the ftse100 and available specifically to UK investors.  I guess a lot of UK investors sold their investment in those UK focussed funds available to UK investors and took that cash and invested in US focused funds available to UK investors.  So even if prices stayed the same, the total fund value of those types of funds went down, perhaps transferred to non retail funds, individual shares buyers, hedge funds, maybe funds domiciled in other countries that UK people can't access

The trend of UK retail investors shunning the poor returns of the FTSE100 in favour of the higher returns of the S&P500 has been driven by the global dominance of US tech. Also driven by the influence of social media, which often focuses on the US. Many a thread on this forum shows a different rationale for why people have focused on the US market. If there's evidence that something happened suddenly around 2016 that's not part of a longer trend, then I'd like to see it. To complicate matters, there were actually large inflows into UK index tracker funds following the Covid dip (and around the time the UK actually left the EU) as investors rotated into UK value. I don't think that was "because of Brexit" any more than the outflows throughout the 2010s.

As you say, when retail investors sell funds, there will be institutional/international buyers and other retail investors picking up the slack, and if they are taking place in a generally rising market as was the case around 2016, it is merely part of the cut and thrust of the market.

Ultimately, the underperformance of the FTSE100 began a long time before 2016 and people noticed and started to take action. While I have no personal or political affinity for the events of 2016, I find suggestion that the FTSE100's performance is attributable to that factor is a case of correlation without causation. The UK’s lack of a heavy technology sector compared to the US began long before the referendum and remains a much more plausible driver of the returns we see today. It's a similar case for other non-US (and non-EU markets).

No arguments there, I was not suggesting that Brexit etc was 'the' reason for this so called 'record outflow' ( and those in the media claiming that, show limited understanding of the nuances), but the concept of a 'record outflow' occuring during that period was still valid as per the poster imo so thought I should offer that opinion.  It's likely that the perception of the Brexit impact, real or not, has added to those UK investors feeling that there is more 'good reason' to head over to the US boom.

It's largely human nature isn't it (for lay people). They chase after gains after they have already happened. No normal people want to invest in declining shares/markets. Recent public interest in the ftse 100 is because of the gains since April, and the nice headline 10K+ index. Aside from me (ha!) not too many people were advocating for UK securities in April when they were a much better buy (in my opinion). 

I don't need to teach some/most of the regs on here to suck eggs, but every now and again I do relapse and take the bait, and feel somewhat compelled to bring some realism to those believing a fantasy that they are sold. 

The key over rider in the period that we are discussing is the performance of the US. It's not specific to the UK, but a huge number of people who get to influence the general narrative hate the concept of Brexit, and bizarrely appear to not like Britain or the British in general either. So it's very convenient to make the less informed people believe that 'we' are the only ones lagging behind the US, and the main reason is Brexit. When pretty much the rest of the world is lagging behind the US (with one or two exceptions). What is happening in the US and the possible house of cards is another topic. There is no doubt obviously that they very much lead the investing world, predominately due to the mag 7, whether the market values them accurately or not.