Neptune Global Equity & Artemis Global Growth

purch

In case you missed it...this is how Neptune describe the Fund;

The Neptune Global Alpha Fund is Neptune’s most concentrated high-conviction approach to global investing. It is managed on a total return basis and has the flexibility to invest in equities, fixed income, property and cash.

The Fund usually holds around thirty stocks and has an unconstrained approach to asset allocation

The Fund’s investment objective is to generate a positive total return, from investment predominantly in equities and bonds, with a view to attaining top quartile performance amongst the IMA Active Managed sector


A concentrated portfolio of 30 stocks makes this a VERY HIGH RISK fund, far higher than the Global Equity fund. You will also notice that the Global Alpha fund is benchmarked against the Active Managed sector rather than the Global Growth sector.

If you are determined to invest your 'hard earned' into just one fund in the Global Growth sector, then the Neptune Global Alpha fund probably isn't a good idea IMHO

wombat42_2

purch wrote: »

In case you missed it...this is how Neptune describe the Fund;

The Neptune Global Alpha Fund is Neptune’s most concentrated high-conviction approach to global investing. It is managed on a total return basis and has the flexibility to invest in equities, fixed income, property and cash.

The Fund usually holds around thirty stocks and has an unconstrained approach to asset allocation

The Fund’s investment objective is to generate a positive total return, from investment predominantly in equities and bonds, with a view to attaining top quartile performance amongst the IMA Active Managed sector


A concentrated portfolio of 30 stocks makes this a VERY HIGH RISK fund, far higher than the Global Equity fund. You will also notice that the Global Alpha fund is benchmarked against the Active Managed sector rather than the Global Growth sector.

If you are determined to invest your 'hard earned' into just one fund in the Global Growth sector, then the Neptune Global Alpha fund probably isn't a good idea IMHO

I think the fact that it is in the active managed sector just covers the possibility that it could invest in fixed income, property and cash:

"Funds which offer investment in a range of assets, with the Manager being able to invest up to 100% in equities at their discretion. At least 10% must be held in non-UK equities. There is no minimum Sterling/Euro balance and equities are deemed to include convertibles. At any one time the asset allocation of these funds may hold a high proportion of non-equity assets such that the asset allocation would by default place the fund in either the Balanced or Cautious sector. These funds would remain in this sector on these occasions since it is the Manager's stated intention to retain the right to invest up to 100% in equities."

The alpha equities are certainly higher risk than the equity fund but it does try to mitigate risk with potential non-equity holdings.

meester

ferox666 wrote: »

Sorry wombat, your post hadn't been there when I started writing my reply.

Perhaps the Equity has performed better because it is simply higher risk than Alpha - Alpha has brought lower returns (but still decent) but perhaps was less likely to "crash"? I really don't know, and I've just looked and noticed how much smaller the Alpha fund is (i.e. millions invested) than Global. I'm still undecided...I will need to maybe look at Neptune's site to find out all the differences of both funds. I

Try comparing here:

Global Alpha http://www.trustnet.com/ut/funds/?fund=4777
Ratios
1y3yVolatility17.7217.73Alpha13.3710.34Beta1.411.59Sharpe0.351.29Info Ratio1.301.73R20.810.86

Global Equity http://www.trustnet.com/ut/funds/?fund=4858
1y3yVolatility17.5918.54Alpha17.2212.56Beta1.321.46Sharpe0.581.30Info Ratio2.061.92R20.860.87

As you can see, the Volatility is statistically not significantly different. Both are significantly more volatile than say UK Equity Income (about 12), but rather less risky than say JPM Natural Resources (26), or Gartmore China (about 30). So it's a little way up the volatility scale, suggesting a long-term strategy for you as the investor.

The Alpha, Sharpe Ratio, Beta and Information Ratio are not really comparable, because the two funds are in different sectors - Active Managed for Global Alpha, and Global Growthfor Global Equity. Both, per, the r^2 are strongly correlated to their benchmarks. The indication, however, is that both perform well relative to their benchmarks, and the beta above 1 shows that any rises/falls in the respective benchmarks will be amplified. Both appear to be good performers relative to the market, with positive Information Ratio and Sharpe Ratios indicating respectively good performance relative to market, and good performance for the level of risk assumed.

(Note the newly launched Global Max Alpha, which has very short track record to date) http://www.trustnet.com/ut/funds/?fund=12866

wombat42_2

meester wrote: »

(Note the newly launched Global Max Alpha, which has very short track record to date) http://www.trustnet.com/ut/funds/?fund=12866

Jesus that is mind blowing. Neptune seem to be starting a new fund every five minutes. What is the point of this fund when the other alpha fund only gets about a 10th of the money of the equity fund? It will be interesting to find out how this fund operates. Strange that H&L havent acknowledged it yet and it doesnt seem to be on the Neptune website.

munk

Well a lot of activity on this thread since this morning....

In response:
Backtrack on my original idea that Neptune Alpha is best idea for current market volatility
@purch: you say alpha is more risky but as some data posted above mentions the volatility of the two is very similar. To be honest I'm reconsidering my position above (saying the alpha being more suitable for lower volatility) given the alpha and equity volatility measures on trustnet... alpha has a slightly higher volatility although it's pretty negligible (and the volatility measures may well be relative to their respective benchmarks as well). However given the increased alpha ratio of the equity fund over the alpha fund, it would appear the equity fund might be a better choice.

Sorry to confuse things for you ferox666! At the end of the day there's not a lot in it to be fair, though given a) the higher alpha ratio of the Equity fund (the alpha ratio is a measure of how much a fund has outperformed it's benchmark all things being equal) and b) the increased annual management charges that wombat mentions, Neptune Global Equity may well be a better choice (especially for you given you're planning on leaving money invested for a long period, so lower amcs will make a difference).

Suitability of resource funds to 'set and forget' over 5-10yrs
Re what you asked about the suitability of resource funds for leaving alone for 5-10yrs...

There are some who think that resource funds will do less well in the coming years because of the negative effects on the sector as a result of a global recession (if it transpires!). Mainly this is because China's requirements for raw materials will deteriorate as demand for goods from Western countries diminishes.

However, personally I can't see resources bombing out totally. Demand for raw materials will still be there for the foreseeable future/long term (ie 10yrs+) and there are other schools of thought that resources are in a long term bull supercycle that could last 20 yrs given the increasing requirements for resources from developing countries like India, China and Latin America.

I would imagine that resource funds will still provide double digit annual returns, perhaps only just through 2007 but still high single digits at least, so could be worth it. Only my opinion, IANAFA etc etc etc

I looked into the FS Global Resources and JPM Natural Resources funds a while back and they look pretty decent in terms of past performance. Both funds are similar to the Neptune Global funds in terms of their sustained appearance in the top quartile (even decile) of their sector's performance - personally I was thinking of going with the FS fund because it just noses it in terms of performance and lower volatility.

Again it would probably come down to a nit picking (but very instructive none-the-less!) argument as we've had above about the virtues of the Neptune Alpha vs Equity funds. Would certainly be interesting to hear others opinions of the merits of investing in resources going forward and on the relative merits of the various resource funds.

(You might want to check out the Morningstar Fund Comaprison tool as well to look at the funds side by side... if it works, was crashing for me just now ).

At the risk of skewing the thread OT, other medium-high risk themes to consider are infrastructure and commodities.

Cheers.

wombat42_2

munk wrote: »

At the risk of skewing the thread OT, other medium-high risk themes to consider are infrastructure and commodities.
Cheers.

See JM Finn Global Ops thread
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=722967

munk

I threw you a bone

cloud_dog

ferox666, some good funds mentioned here (have some of them in my SIPP) sooooooooo................ novel idea I know but................... why dont you spread your investment across a couple / few???

When I started (a small number of years ago ) I had £300pm to invest and I picked the minimum monthly amount (£50) and put it in to six different funds. I would periodically (once a year) review my investments and surprisingly :rotfl: some did better than others.

You don't have to spend hours researching funds just use the tools available (trustnet, morning star, H&L Wealth 150, etc, etc) to occasionally reassess your holdings and if you want to switch one fund to another.

One other thing worth knowing is that I have since learnt that it is sometimes more beneficial to follow fund managers rather than top performing funds so Best Invest is useful in reviewing FM performance:

http://www.bestinvest.com/fundmanagers/fmpro?-db=webprices.fp5&-format=index.htm&-token=&-token.1=99&-token.2=5&-token.3=3&-view

Even though I am an active investor now I still carryout my yearly re-assessment of my investments and my strategy.

cloud_dog

shokadelika

[quote=wombat42;8484503

The resource funds you mention may do well long term but are likely to have scary volatility.[/quote]




But that is what you want -" volatility"- the more volatility the better, if you are saving monthly as long as long term trend is up!There is no point investing monthly in a in a steadily rising fund, you would be better to invest a lump sum at the start.

cloud_dog

shokadelika wrote: »

But that is what you want -" volatility"- the more volatility the better, if you are saving monthly as long as long term trend is up!There is no point investing monthly in a in a steadily rising fund, you would be better to invest a lump sum at the start.

ABSOLUTELY - In fact I'd go a bit further and say if you are investing monthly / periodically you really want the markets to do nothing / fall all in the knowlege that at some point the usual cycle of events will come round to pushing investments up.