All Star Manager Portfolio

FATHEROFTWO_2

I have been spending a lot of time researching the portfolio again in particular the suggestion made to have a GLOBAL FUND and to diversify the ASIAN sector. Also to consider including the USA part is the exposure into my GLOBAL FUND.

The funds I have found that fit my Manager criteria and have consistently performed over the past 5 years are.

Global

NEPTUNE GLOBAL EQUITY A ACC (Growth) Robin Geffen AAA Citywire

This fund is rated by Morningstar as HIGH RISK which I am not happy about although the returns and performance are impressive along with Geffen who has an excellent track record. I think this is almost like an emerging markets fund as 25 percent of the fund is in Asia..15 percent is emerging markets which I am not happy about although I could offset this with reduction of the amount invested in a dedicated emerging markets fund where I was already considering First State Asia pacific and alianz bric stars so I could tweak that side of it but I think I would still have to have a dedicated US FUND to make up for the lack of US exposure.
The USA coverage is only 8.67 percent and if I intended to dispense with a US fund then this doesn’t provide the vehicle although it’s been the best performing fund in the sector.
I am impressed by this fund but it doesn’t tick all the boxes.

M&G GLOBAL LEADERS A ACC (Value large cap) Aled Smith AAA Citywire

This Fund is rated by Morningstar as ABOVE AVERAGE RISK and has a 3 star rated manager although the performance has been good it’s not been as stellar as Neptune.
It has a 23 percent Europe coverage with a 40 percent USA coverage which would allow me to meet the USA balanced portfolio without an individual US fund. It has a 15 percent Japan market which I suppose is a mature market certainly more mature than China but the Japans economy hasn’t done that well over that past few years but the time might be right. The fund only has 1.31 percent in emerging markets which sounds good.

M&G GLOBAL BASICS A ACC (Global Eq Small/mid cap) Graham French A Citywire

The Manager was one that the book “FUNDOLOGY” mentioned as a good manager.
This Fund seems impressive and has an ABOVE AVERAGE Morningstar RISK rating.
It has performed very well and is second to Neptune over the 5 Year performance although you would imagine that the risk is higher partly due as it invests in the MID/Small caps.
It has 31.86 percent invested in USA so it could be used instead of an individual USA Fund.
It has very little in Japan.
14 percent in Australasia with only 0.55 in emerging markets which is what I’m looking for in this type of Global Fund..

ARTEMIS GLOBAL GROWTH FUND ( Eq Large Blend) Peter Saacke AA Citywire

This fund has been gradually improving over the past few years.
This fund is rated by Morningstar as HIGH RISK which is concerning.
It has a financial percentage exposure of 22 percent which I thought was a bit high given the current credit crunch.
It has a 31 percent exposure to USA which can be used Instead of a dedicated US Fund.
It only has a 3 percent emerging markets exposure..

Does anyone have any comments on the RISK or other suggestions of funds that could be considered or why ?
Or any other comments to my view of the funds chosen?

For Information the emerging markets funds that I am considering is

FIRST STATE ASIA PACIFIC LEADERS
And
ALIANZ BRIC STARS
My investment in these funds will be adjusted according to the Global Funds chosen

purch

The Global Growth sector contains such a wide diversity of Funds with different objectives and styles that you are wise to do some in-depth research.

The Neptune fund is far more of an 'semi-emerging' Global Equity fund than most, and that needs to be factored into the equation

Aled Smith is something of a North America specialist ( he also runs the M&G N America fund ) and he tends to lean towards the more mature and established markets. One point to note is that Smith does not hedge any of his holdings against currency risk (as far as I am aware) wheras most other Fund Managers will hedge to differing extents.

Personally I do not consider either of the funds you mention as purely 'Emerging' Market funds.

chris1

Just an observation - if you're uncomfortable with high risk (as I am) then you don't have to do it - whatever 'they' say you 'ought' to do, in the end it's up to you.

Thanks for raising this interesting thread by the way

FATHEROFTWO_2

Thanks for your responses but I was hoping for suggestions or alternatives to the ones I have highlighted to consider.

I know it is dufficult to get the the right balance but I was looking at incorporating some of them into a GLOBAL FUND or offsetting risk against something a bit more stable combining it with sufficient North American coverage to save me from selecting purely a stand alone North American FUnd.

I am looking for a small percentage emerging market but am unsure how to "blend" the selected Funds into the mix to achieve this balance.

I do like the Neptune FUND and am prepared to accept the high risk as I would with selecting any Emerging Fund ie First State asia pacific or Alianz bric stars but its achieving this proper mix that the problem!

Any thoughts ?

jamesd

I suggest treating the Neptune fund as emerging markets, look at recent year by year performance to see why you might avoid the M&G Global Basics fund and consider Artemis or M&G for the global bit (don't know the M&G Global leaders performance).

As of 31 Jan 2008 the Artemis fund was 14.7% banks, 5.2% other financial. In the past and maybe now the banks have included Russian, Turkish, Cypriot and Greek. Likely others in areas where growth remains good and banks are OK. Though banks in the west aren't necessarily a bad idea at current prices. Global funds seem to use banks as a one stop way to get a bit of cover of a country's general growth.

FATHEROFTWO_2

jamesd wrote: »

I suggest treating the Neptune fund as emerging markets, look at recent year by year performance to see why you might avoid the M&G Global Basics fund and consider Artemis or M&G for the global bit (don't know the M&G Global leaders performance).

As of 31 Jan 2008 the Artemis fund was 14.7% banks, 5.2% other financial. In the past and maybe now the banks have included Russian, Turkish, Cypriot and Greek. Likely others in areas where growth remains good and banks are OK. Though banks in the west aren't necessarily a bad idea at current prices. Global funds seem to use banks as a one stop way to get a bit of cover of a country's general growth.

Yes I can see your point about treating Neptune as an emarging market Fund.I really like the neptune FUND and would not like to disregard it.
I could load up the fund with the Funds I was going to allocate with the sector allocation mentioned before IE Alianz BRIC Stars and First state asia pacific leaders.
I will play about with the amount allocated and the sectors it covers till I get the right balance.That is one option

When you say consider Artemis or M&G .Are you talking about the one I mentioned in my post
IE M&G Global leaders ?

Is their any other FUND that I may have overlooked that would fit the criteria I mentioned earlier ?

purch

Just to confuzzle the issue

Have you considered the 'Balanced Managed' sector ?

Again there is a wide variety of Funds in this sector, so research is essential, but most will offer some 'Lower Risk' Global exposure.

The Neptune Balanced Managed Fund (again the lead Manager is Geffen) is always near the top of the returns chart, and as it's Neptune, who have the philosophy of always thinking Globally, it could be considered a 'Lower Risk' Global Fund (50% is UK)

jamesd

Yes, I was writing about M&G Global Leaders.

The trouble with specialist funds like Alianz RCM BRIC Stars is that there are a lot of them that are interesting (agriculture for example) and your risk profile means you can't have a lot in them. So you're set for some frustration if you want to have all of the interesting ideas. And maybe more frustration later when you see them growing rapidly but only as a small percentage of your total investment. That's when your commitment to sector allocation at your specified risk level will be sorely tested.

You could opt for a deliberate split of say 10k or 20k outside the allocation for ideas that you think are interesting, while most of it goes into the allocation. Transfer half of any profits into the main lump each year and if you do well.

SpinnerB

Fatheroftwo & all the contributers to this thread, thanks, this thread is really helping me get to grips with the idea of portfolios, for a novice to read this dialogue is very informative, thanks to all (don't let it die please ...)

meester

purch wrote: »

Just to confuzzle the issue

Have you considered the 'Balanced Managed' sector ?

Again there is a wide variety of Funds in this sector, so research is essential, but most will offer some 'Lower Risk' Global exposure.

The Neptune Balanced Managed Fund (again the lead Manager is Geffen) is always near the top of the returns chart, and as it's Neptune, who have the philosophy of always thinking Globally, it could be considered a 'Lower Risk' Global Fund (50% is UK)

Seems to be the same as investing a slightly smaller sum in a higher risk fund, such as Neptune Global Equity, and keeping the rest in cash.

Although it does appear the proportion in bonds varies between 20% and 40% (it is closer to 40% now), so the manager is a bit more flexible.