Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • donmaico
    • By donmaico 10th Jan 18, 10:31 PM
    • 313Posts
    • 38Thanks
    donmaico
    Global technology found.Am I too late?
    • #1
    • 10th Jan 18, 10:31 PM
    Global technology found.Am I too late? 10th Jan 18 at 10:31 PM
    I can't find any threads regarding Global Tech funds and I was wondering why. I have a very cautious portfolio and thought about investing in tech fund as well just to pep things up a bit but the obvious lack of enthusiasm here got me wondering if they are considered far too risky
    Last edited by donmaico; 11-01-2018 at 10:17 PM.
Page 2
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 11th Jan 18, 6:56 PM
    • 7,979 Posts
    • 14,516 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    deleted.there is no delete button so this is the only way I can do it
    Originally posted by donmaico
    Unless you accidentally posted something that personally identifies you in the real world that you don't want us to see, please don't delete your posts.

    It's a bit disrespectful to those who gave their time to help out or comment or discuss, but more importantly it can be interesting or useful for other people coming along in future who are in similar circumstances to you with the same questions, to be able to search and find what points or questions have been made before and what the answers were.

    • bertpalmer
    • By bertpalmer 11th Jan 18, 7:19 PM
    • 97 Posts
    • 43 Thanks
    bertpalmer
    Why was it deleted? Good replies whatever the question was...
    • donmaico
    • By donmaico 11th Jan 18, 7:36 PM
    • 313 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    donmaico
    Unless you accidentally posted something that personally identifies you in the real world that you don't want us to see, please don't delete your posts.

    It's a bit disrespectful to those who gave their time to help out or comment or discuss, but more importantly it can be interesting or useful for other people coming along in future who are in similar circumstances to you with the same questions, to be able to search and find what points or questions have been made before and what the answers were.

    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    My Apologies, but I possibly overacted somewhat after having given rather a lot of information about my portfolio.I didn't mean to delete the OP. That was a mistake and I certainly did not mean to disrespect anyone.I dont feel i have anything to hide but my other half is very sensitive about what i divulge both personally and on any other level
    Last edited by donmaico; 11-01-2018 at 7:40 PM.
    Argentine by birth,English by nature
    • donmaico
    • By donmaico 11th Jan 18, 7:41 PM
    • 313 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    donmaico
    Why was it deleted? Good replies whatever the question was...
    Originally posted by bertpalmer
    they were and I feel a bit of a numpty for deleting it
    Argentine by birth,English by nature
    • BrockStoker
    • By BrockStoker 11th Jan 18, 7:53 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 87 Thanks
    BrockStoker
    I don't think you are too late, and I do think being invested in tech over the next few decades is likely to be extremely profitable. I get the impression that some here appear to think that technology has "peaked", but thinking that is a huge mistake IMHO.

    We are moving towards a "Star Trek" future, where technology is "everything", so there is a long way left to run yet. There are bound to be ups and downs along the way, but tech is quickly finding it's way into every part of life, and even now it's already indispensable. You just have to look at what happens when you try to take away someone's smart phone. They go into a panic which does not end till they have their phone back! What makes anyone think that this will change, or even reverse?

    If anything we need tech even more now to solve the problems society faces: climate change, feeding our selves, energy generation, and curing disease to name some of the most obvious challenges.

    I have been invested heavily (over 1/3 of my main portfolio) in biotech for the last couple of years, and only just took a position in PCT in mid 2017, with a further investment in late 2017 tat takes my total holding in PCT to just over 10% of my main portfolio presently.

    Here are my PCT buys shown on a chart - the pink/red dots:


    I would say though, if you are going to invest, buy in the dips and keep cash on hand/don't go all in initially as I do to minimize risk and to have a chance at getting a better price should the sector decide to correct after you have bought.
    • economic
    • By economic 11th Jan 18, 8:47 PM
    • 2,940 Posts
    • 1,586 Thanks
    economic
    I don't think you are too late, and I do think being invested in tech over the next few decades is likely to be extremely profitable. I get the impression that some here appear to think that technology has "peaked", but thinking that is a huge mistake IMHO.

    We are moving towards a "Star Trek" future, where technology is "everything", so there is a long way left to run yet. There are bound to be ups and downs along the way, but tech is quickly finding it's way into every part of life, and even now it's already indispensable. You just have to look at what happens when you try to take away someone's smart phone. They go into a panic which does not end till they have their phone back! What makes anyone think that this will change, or even reverse?

    If anything we need tech even more now to solve the problems society faces: climate change, feeding our selves, energy generation, and curing disease to name some of the most obvious challenges.

    I have been invested heavily (over 1/3 of my main portfolio) in biotech for the last couple of years, and only just took a position in PCT in mid 2017, with a further investment in late 2017 tat takes my total holding in PCT to just over 10% of my main portfolio presently.

    Here are my PCT buys shown on a chart - the pink/red dots:


    I would say though, if you are going to invest, buy in the dips and keep cash on hand/don't go all in initially as I do to minimize risk and to have a chance at getting a better price should the sector decide to correct after you have bought.
    Originally posted by BrockStoker
    I added to my position in PCT at exactly those points as well!! Plus i added just before the rise in October.

    with biotech i own BIOG and WWH. Poor performers so am disappointing but they are not huge positions. I am overweight tech and financials (US banks).

    It seems i have tech all over the place - US index funds, single stocks, managed growth funds, PCT.
    • Sally57
    • By Sally57 11th Jan 18, 9:13 PM
    • 104 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Sally57
    I added to my position in PCT at exactly those points as well!! Plus i added just before the rise in October.

    with biotech i own BIOG and WWH. Poor performers so am disappointing but they are not huge positions. I am overweight tech and financials (US banks).

    It seems i have tech all over the place - US index funds, single stocks, managed growth funds, PCT.
    Originally posted by economic
    I have held WWH for a number of years and it is certainly not a poor performer.
    • economic
    • By economic 11th Jan 18, 9:52 PM
    • 2,940 Posts
    • 1,586 Thanks
    economic
    I have held WWH for a number of years and it is certainly not a poor performer.
    Originally posted by Sally57
    I only started buying in the last year (hence the relatively small position in it). so that's why its been one of my weaker performers.
    • BrockStoker
    • By BrockStoker 11th Jan 18, 10:15 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 87 Thanks
    BrockStoker
    I only started buying in the last year (hence the relatively small position in it). so that's why its been one of my weaker performers.
    Originally posted by economic
    I'm sure it will come good if you hang on in there. It was one of the first funds I bought (in May 2015), a bit before I was as clued up as I am now, and I didn't wait for a dip, but even so it has done OK. I wish I had topped up later on in 2015 now, when biotech was tanking!

    I still think the Polar Capital Biotechnology fund is the best bet in that sector though (small cap biotech looks well positioned for 2018), so I've been topping that up too, along with a top up of BIOG (at the same time as my PCT top up) late last year which is already growing nicely. The plan was to sell some after a quick profit (BIOG usually springs back quickly after a sharp dip), but I may hold off for a little longer before selling, or perhaps even stick with it.
    • Linton
    • By Linton 11th Jan 18, 10:54 PM
    • 9,395 Posts
    • 9,529 Thanks
    Linton
    I don't think you are too late, and I do think being invested in tech over the next few decades is likely to be extremely profitable. I get the impression that some here appear to think that technology has "peaked", but thinking that is a huge mistake IMHO.

    We are moving towards a "Star Trek" future, where technology is "everything", so there is a long way left to run yet. There are bound to be ups and downs along the way, but tech is quickly finding it's way into every part of life, and even now it's already indispensable. You just have to look at what happens when you try to take away someone's smart phone. They go into a panic which does not end till they have their phone back! What makes anyone think that this will change, or even reverse?

    If anything we need tech even more now to solve the problems society faces: climate change, feeding our selves, energy generation, and curing disease to name some of the most obvious challenges.

    I..
    Originally posted by BrockStoker
    There are two different discussions. One is whether technology has peaked. I don!!!8217;t think anyone believes that. We are only just beginning an enormous upheaval in society, economics, and politics across the world brought about by advances in technology.

    A quite different discussion is whether the private investor can gain a long term benefit from this. The key problem I see is that everything is hyped up a few years too early. In the tech boom and crash around 2000 we saw the price of almost any company that added an @ to its name rise to crazy levels. IIRC Companies that had never made a profit nearly reached the FTSE100. Then it all crashed. Virtually none of those early pioneers are still around. And it wasn!!!8217;t until 5 or more years later that the web economy became a significant reality creating a new set of major companies focussed on the consumer rather than the technology.

    We are seeing the same thing happen again with block chain and AI. Look at what happened to the price of Kodak over the past few days. Both to my mind are no more than interesting programming techniques where serious rewards are some way off. From an investment point of view the problem with both is that there is no cost of entry. Anyone can start up a company to develop the software. But very few software development companies make serious money, the rest simply burn their backer!!!8217;s money away in a small number of years and disappear.

    So the question should be whether you focus your investing on technology or in the areas which may benefit from the technology.

    The best answer I can come up with is to simply continue investing as broadly as you can. It would be a mistake in my view to overweight technology more than it is already weighted in the major indexes. And that I fear may be too high.
    • BananaRepublic
    • By BananaRepublic 11th Jan 18, 11:18 PM
    • 1,192 Posts
    • 874 Thanks
    BananaRepublic
    mmm you can claim it is. Perhaps if the bank's voice recognition system used identical software to Siri but had just been trained differently I might be a bit more convinced. Or perhaps if it heard me becoming agitated it showed some sympathy. AI perhaps is a bit like magic where once you can see how it's done it ceases to be magic.

    More importantly to us on MSE - Do you think it has provided a lucrative investment?
    Originally posted by Linton
    In the past people thought AI would be robots that behave like humans, and act as servants. Or be all knowing computers as per the ship computer in the original Star Trek series. The reality is quite different. Modern AI tackles narrow problems. Speech recognition is one. Already there are programs that can diagnose illness better than a doctor, or formulate an investment portfolio better than an IFA. And self driving cars too. This is going to transform society. Some predict massive job losses in middle class professions. I think there will be new jobs, managing the AI, and in the leisure sector.

    As you said in another post, it!!!8217;s really hard to know where to invest. When Microsoft and Apple started, there were lots of computer companies. I remember the era well. Most have long since died. It will be the same with AI companies. I!!!8217;ve worked in many tech companies where I knew the company was tarted up so it could be sold to an investor, to make the owners money. The staff knew the buyers were getting a pup. The original owners retired to the Bahamas after the sale. This is quite common. Perhaps the best approach is to do lots of research, then invest in a handful of small companies. Forget the hype, just decide if they have a good product, with an expanding market.
    • sixpence.
    • By sixpence. 11th Jan 18, 11:26 PM
    • 138 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    sixpence.
    Surely a gobal tech tracker is the safest out of all tech investments? I favour the legal and general one. Ultimately the word needs tech so I don't see why it would be high risk. Computer software is used for almost every business and if there is another tech crash it will eventually recover.
    • coastline
    • By coastline 11th Jan 18, 11:43 PM
    • 940 Posts
    • 1,083 Thanks
    coastline
    Surely a gobal tech tracker is the safest out of all tech investments? I favour the legal and general one. Ultimately the word needs tech so I don't see why it would be high risk. Computer software is used for almost every business and if there is another tech crash it will eventually recover.
    Originally posted by sixpence.
    I've looked at that myself and if you'd bought the Nasdaq 100 tracker there's no difference in performance over 5 years.
    In the link below add the Index Nasdaq 100 and the Ishares tracker CNX1.
    Regarding a crash you can see it happened over a few years and not overnight.

    http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/f/fidelity-global-technology-a-gbp-income-inclusive/charts

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/NASDAQ-100-1985to2015.svg
    • sixpence.
    • By sixpence. 11th Jan 18, 11:53 PM
    • 138 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    sixpence.
    I've looked at that myself and if you'd bought the Nasdaq 100 tracker there's no difference in performance over 5 years.
    In the link below add the Index Nasdaq 100 and the Ishares tracker CNX1.
    Regarding a crash you can see it happened over a few years and not overnight.

    http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/f/fidelity-global-technology-a-gbp-income-inclusive/charts

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/NASDAQ-100-1985to2015.svg
    Originally posted by coastline
    Sure but what is your point re buying? Are you saying it's a high risk sector through and through.
    • coastline
    • By coastline 12th Jan 18, 12:08 AM
    • 940 Posts
    • 1,083 Thanks
    coastline
    Sure but what is your point re buying? Are you saying it's a high risk sector through and through.
    Originally posted by sixpence.
    As posted earlier a 5% allocation is probably enough in the sector.
    All down to yourself really regarding volatility but it was possible to sell in the last downturn as it didn't collapse overnight.

    Looking at the forward earnings of the Nasdaq 100 it is in a far healthier position than the 1998-2000 boom years. Given that the chances of a massive crash are probably much less.

    http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-peyield.html

    I highlighted the tracker as it has full replication and stands at 1.2bn market capitalisation which should give it the liquidity you might need.?

    https://www.justetf.com/uk/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B53SZB19
    Last edited by coastline; 12-01-2018 at 11:53 AM.
    • sixpence.
    • By sixpence. 12th Jan 18, 12:16 AM
    • 138 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    sixpence.
    As posted earlier a 5% allocation is probably enough in the sector.
    All down to yourself really regarding volatility but it was possible to sell in the last downturn as it didn't collapse overnight.
    Originally posted by coastline
    Do you mean 5% of an entire portfolio or that 5% of your porfolio would be a tech fund? For example, the VLS 100 portfolio is 15% tech overall.
    • economic
    • By economic 12th Jan 18, 1:09 AM
    • 2,940 Posts
    • 1,586 Thanks
    economic
    Tech has had and it looks like it will continue to have strong earnings. Tech now is VERY different to tech in 2000. Companies are actually generating profits this time and they are growing profits a lot too.

    Also there are different types of tech companies. Amazon is very different to apple which is very different to google. Something like amazon isn't even regarded as "tech" - its a consumer cyclical stock which makes sense as it generates by far most of its revenues through ecommerce.
    • Linton
    • By Linton 12th Jan 18, 1:57 AM
    • 9,395 Posts
    • 9,529 Thanks
    Linton
    Tech has had and it looks like it will continue to have strong earnings. Tech now is VERY different to tech in 2000. Companies are actually generating profits this time and they are growing profits a lot too.

    Also there are different types of tech companies. Amazon is very different to apple which is very different to google. Something like amazon isn't even regarded as "tech" - its a consumer cyclical stock which makes sense as it generates by far most of its revenues through ecommerce.
    Originally posted by economic
    I agree with you about Amazon not being a technology company, and would argue that the same could apply to Google and Facebook which as far as their profitable business goes major in selling advertising space.

    Is there any reason why an investor should buy funds that have large holdings in these companies in order to benefit from the supposed AI and block chain revolutions? Perhaps there should be a separate sector for companies that do almost all of their business online as they are very different to those that focus on the development of technology.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th Jan 18, 10:09 AM
    • 93,012 Posts
    • 60,397 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Do you mean 5% of an entire portfolio or that 5% of your porfolio would be a tech fund? For example, the VLS 100 portfolio is 15% tech overall.
    Originally posted by sixpence.
    You will hold different sectors through natural diversification. By holding a specific tech fund, you are intentionally boosting one particular sector at the expense of all the others.

    Plus, people picking VLS100 are not the type that would pick a tech fund. It is an illogical pairing and would suggest a confused investor.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Voyager2002
    • By Voyager2002 12th Jan 18, 10:20 AM
    • 12,143 Posts
    • 8,262 Thanks
    Voyager2002

    Plus, people picking VLS100 are not the type that would pick a tech fund. It is an illogical pairing and would suggest a confused investor.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Do you mean that few investors would want to combine a low-volatility investment with a rather high-volatility one? Because that pairing would make a lot of sense to me, and I like to think that I know what I am doing: a core-satellite approach, choosing a core to provide reasonable safety and a number of different satellites to provide the possibility of high returns (and equally the chance of substantial losses). Or have I got it wrong somewhere?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,025Posts Today

7,942Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LaraLewington: ...and mine suggested I'd achieved a lifelong ambition of being sawn in half by a magician - at our wedding. Wasn't. Don?

  • We are working on it - I think BA has behaved awfully on this. Those flight were no obviously a glitch. It should? https://t.co/8pvtXtUEqi

  • RT @thenicolabryant: Absolutely. We need mental health and financial health as advocated my @MartinSLewis , to be taught in schools. So muc?

  • Follow Martin