Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Personal Assets Trust
+ Reply to discussion
Options
Aminatidi
Posted: 18 February 2021 08:19:34(UTC)
#213

Joined: 29/01/2018(UTC)
Posts: 5,865

Thanks: 7151 times
Was thanked: 11412 time(s) in 3831 post(s)
smg8;153376 wrote:
Not much to add to this thread but it's interesting to read.

Can I ask though, unless I am mistaken Monks manager was appointed in 2015. So why are people looking at it's performance in 2008 as a comparison when it had a different manager and different mandate?

Is it not totally irrelevant? Maybe I've missed something but seems odd.


Honestly I just used it as an example of something that dumped 40% in 2008.

Pick any.

I include myself in this but I suspect there's a whole bunch of people who just aren't used to things dropping and then taking years to pull themselves back up.

What happened last year doesn't feel natural.

But you say that and you're assumed to be Jeremy Grantham or Hussman in disguise :)
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked Aminatidi for this post.
Tim D on 18/02/2021(UTC), smg8 on 18/02/2021(UTC), SF100 on 18/02/2021(UTC)
smg8
Posted: 18 February 2021 08:42:54(UTC)
#226

Joined: 26/04/2020(UTC)
Posts: 3,365
SF100;153394 wrote:
smg8;153376 wrote:
Not much to add to this thread but it's interesting to read.

Can I ask though, unless I am mistaken Monks manager was appointed in 2015. So why are people looking at it's performance in 2008 as a comparison when it had a different manager and different mandate?

Is it not totally irrelevant? Maybe I've missed something but seems odd.

Not irrelevant in the context of the instigating post #163.
But I'd say comparing a 100% risk-on fund, to a fund with uppperbound multi-asset risk-on limit of 80% and more commonly much less, each with different mandates, is rather pointless.

Incidentally, what was Monks mandate in 2008?


It's still kind of irrelevant, as Monks was a totally different trust then (so post 163 suggesting it as a comparison is incorrect in the context of providing a relative comparison, though can certainly see why the comparison would be made after post 163 suggested doing so).

Further posts go on to outline how much Monks increased between period x and y versus CGT, which again doesn't mean much as Monks was a different trust back then.

The current ethos around Monks - 4 types of growth; stalwarts, cyclical, latent, rapid etc is as far as I understand something the "new" (now outgoing) manager introduced to turn around the fortunes of what was previously a poorly performing IT.

Gerald Smith ran Monks from 2006 - 2015, between his appointment and him leaving it returned 67% versus 95% from the FTSE World. Fair to say it's improved a bit since!
Back to top Quote
smg8
Posted: 18 February 2021 08:54:39(UTC)
#214

Joined: 26/04/2020(UTC)
Posts: 3,365
Aminatidi;153408 wrote:
smg8;153376 wrote:
Not much to add to this thread but it's interesting to read.

Can I ask though, unless I am mistaken Monks manager was appointed in 2015. So why are people looking at it's performance in 2008 as a comparison when it had a different manager and different mandate?

Is it not totally irrelevant? Maybe I've missed something but seems odd.


Honestly I just used it as an example of something that dumped 40% in 2008.

Pick any.

I include myself in this but I suspect there's a whole bunch of people who just aren't used to things dropping and then taking years to pull themselves back up.

What happened last year doesn't feel natural.

But you say that and you're assumed to be Jeremy Grantham or Hussman in disguise :)


Well let's use a different example - Morgan Stanley Global Brands. They have had the same approach and methodology since the funds inception, so whilst management has evolved over the years, it's a closer comparison than Monks whose approach itself has changed.

If we assume anyone investing in equities has a 5 year timescale (really this is seen as the bare minimum isn't it).



So if a lump sum into MSGB and CGT in Jan 06 held until Jan 11 the worst you'd see your account is -10% (ish) in MSGB versus -6% (ish) for CGT. And the best you'd see your account is +50% for MSGB or +40% for CGT.

If you then lengthen that timescale to 10 years (which is a much fairer barometer) the chart is below;



I totally get that people want to protect their wealth as they get older but from looking at these examples from the period chosen by you to paint a worst case scenario I do find it a little hard to see what benefit having CGT offers IF the individual has a long enough time horizon.

Of course this is all based on a lump sum, drip feeding/still accumulating makes it an even clearer choice (in my opinion).
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
3 users thanked smg8 for this post.
SF100 on 18/02/2021(UTC), Simon Martin on 18/02/2021(UTC), Chans on 18/02/2021(UTC)
Shetland
Posted: 18 February 2021 09:08:38(UTC)
#223

Joined: 13/03/2015(UTC)
Posts: 1,242
smg8;153413 wrote:
Aminatidi;153408 wrote:
smg8;153376 wrote:
Not much to add to this thread but it's interesting to read.

Can I ask though, unless I am mistaken Monks manager was appointed in 2015. So why are people looking at it's performance in 2008 as a comparison when it had a different manager and different mandate?

Is it not totally irrelevant? Maybe I've missed something but seems odd.


Honestly I just used it as an example of something that dumped 40% in 2008.

Pick any.

I include myself in this but I suspect there's a whole bunch of people who just aren't used to things dropping and then taking years to pull themselves back up.

What happened last year doesn't feel natural.

But you say that and you're assumed to be Jeremy Grantham or Hussman in disguise :)


Well let's use a different example - Morgan Stanley Global Brands. They have had the same approach and methodology since the funds inception, so whilst management has evolved over the years, it's a closer comparison than Monks whose approach itself has changed.

If we assume anyone investing in equities has a 5 year timescale (really this is seen as the bare minimum isn't it).



So if a lump sum into MSGB and CGT in Jan 06 held until Jan 11 the worst you'd see your account is -10% (ish) in MSGB versus -6% (ish) for CGT. And the best you'd see your account is +50% for MSGB or +40% for CGT.

If you then lengthen that timescale to 10 years (which is a much fairer barometer) the chart is below;



I totally get that people want to protect their wealth as they get older but from looking at these examples from the period chosen by you to paint a worst case scenario I do find it a little hard to see what benefit having CGT offers IF the individual has a long enough time horizon.

Of course this is all based on a lump sum, drip feeding/still accumulating makes it an even clearer choice (in my opinion).


Can you please explain to me how I can include a trustnet graph into a forum post

Thanks
Back to top Quote
Trudy Scrumptious
Posted: 18 February 2021 09:18:45(UTC)
#220

Joined: 10/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 169

Thanks: 1136 times
Was thanked: 391 time(s) in 112 post(s)
smg8;153413 wrote:
Aminatidi;153408 wrote:
smg8;153376 wrote:
Not much to add to this thread but it's interesting to read.

Can I ask though, unless I am mistaken Monks manager was appointed in 2015. So why are people looking at it's performance in 2008 as a comparison when it had a different manager and different mandate?

Is it not totally irrelevant? Maybe I've missed something but seems odd.


Honestly I just used it as an example of something that dumped 40% in 2008.

Pick any.

I include myself in this but I suspect there's a whole bunch of people who just aren't used to things dropping and then taking years to pull themselves back up.

What happened last year doesn't feel natural.

But you say that and you're assumed to be Jeremy Grantham or Hussman in disguise :)


Well let's use a different example - Morgan Stanley Global Brands. They have had the same approach and methodology since the funds inception, so whilst management has evolved over the years, it's a closer comparison than Monks whose approach itself has changed.

If we assume anyone investing in equities has a 5 year timescale (really this is seen as the bare minimum isn't it).



So if a lump sum into MSGB and CGT in Jan 06 held until Jan 11 the worst you'd see your account is -10% (ish) in MSGB versus -6% (ish) for CGT. And the best you'd see your account is +50% for MSGB or +40% for CGT.

If you then lengthen that timescale to 10 years (which is a much fairer barometer) the chart is below;



I totally get that people want to protect their wealth as they get older but from looking at these examples from the period chosen by you to paint a worst case scenario I do find it a little hard to see what benefit having CGT offers IF the individual has a long enough time horizon.

Of course this is all based on a lump sum, drip feeding/still accumulating makes it an even clearer choice (in my opinion).


Surely a comparison of Morgan Stanley Global Brands and CGT is a comparison of Quality Growth vs Value. The last decade is well documented as being one of huge outperformance of the former at the expense of the latter....You're just moving the goalposts to win an argument.
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Trudy Scrumptious for this post.
SF100 on 18/02/2021(UTC)
smg8
Posted: 18 February 2021 09:29:37(UTC)
#221

Joined: 26/04/2020(UTC)
Posts: 3,365
Trudy Scrumptious;153419 wrote:


Surely a comparison of Morgan Stanley Global Brands and CGT is a comparison of Quality Growth vs Value. The last decade is well documented as being one of huge outperformance of the former at the expense of the latter....You're just moving the goalposts to win an argument.


Is it an argument?? I am not arguing with anyone, sorry if I have given the wrong impression. I hold neither and I honestly don't care! I am just giving my alternative take on the conversation.

Someone else compared Monks to CGT to show the impact of a sell off on an equity fund versus a defensive.

I felt that was an incorrect comparison because Monks has a different manager and totally different approach to what it had at the time of comparison (2008).

Therefore I made a comparison between something which;

a) has the same approach/methodology now as it did then
b) is the closest we have to a Fundsmith of it's time (i.e. low volatility, compounders, conservatively managed)

It seemed sensible to compare to something which had the same approach at the time of comparison versus something with a different manager and approach.....that's all.
Back to top Quote
4 users thanked smg8 for this post.
SF100 on 18/02/2021(UTC), Aminatidi on 18/02/2021(UTC), Simon Martin on 18/02/2021(UTC), Al W on 18/02/2025(UTC)
smg8
Posted: 18 February 2021 09:33:27(UTC)
#224

Joined: 26/04/2020(UTC)
Posts: 3,365
Shetland;153418 wrote:


Can you please explain to me how I can include a trustnet graph into a forum post

Thanks


- Take a screenshot of what you want to post (google how to do it depending if on Mac, PC etc)
- Go to this website; https://imgbb.com
- Hit start uploading
- Choose the image you want to upload (i.e. the screenshot you took)
- When it says upload complete, click on the drop down box under "embed codes" and select BBCode Full Linked
- This will create a URL for you
- Copy and paste the URL into your message/quote/reply on here
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked smg8 for this post.
SF100 on 18/02/2021(UTC), Shetland on 18/02/2021(UTC), Tim D on 18/02/2021(UTC)
Aminatidi
Posted: 18 February 2021 09:35:29(UTC)
#215

Joined: 29/01/2018(UTC)
Posts: 5,865

Thanks: 7151 times
Was thanked: 11412 time(s) in 3831 post(s)
smg8;153413 wrote:
I totally get that people want to protect their wealth as they get older but from looking at these examples from the period chosen by you to paint a worst case scenario I do find it a little hard to see what benefit having CGT offers IF the individual has a long enough time horizon.

Of course this is all based on a lump sum, drip feeding/still accumulating makes it an even clearer choice (in my opinion).


Take the 2000 example on the previous page though?

Assume you had no more money to put in.

That was a long time and some people just don't/can't/won't want to wait that long so perhaps settle for (hopefully) more consistent but lower returns?

Personally if you've the appetite for it put the lot in whatever works for you but I do think people seem keener to point out the quick recoveries than the slow painful ones (Japan!).

Honestly my view is buy whatever works for you but I always enjoy how divisive the subject seems to be :)
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked Aminatidi for this post.
SF100 on 18/02/2021(UTC), Tim D on 18/02/2021(UTC)
JayW
Posted: 18 February 2021 09:38:53(UTC)
#227

Joined: 25/08/2019(UTC)
Posts: 358

Thanks: 59 times
Was thanked: 838 time(s) in 264 post(s)
I'm not sure why anyone is comparing PNL and CGT to 100% equity funds, it's like comparing a Toyota Hilux to a 5-series BMW.

Expecting that the next 10-20 years will be like the last 10, and that only 100% equity makes any sense, seems to be a risky approach. Good luck having the willpower to hold on to a pure equity portfolio through a multi-year bear market as it goes down every month, that can't be much fun.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
6 users thanked JayW for this post.
SF100 on 18/02/2021(UTC), Tim D on 18/02/2021(UTC), smg8 on 18/02/2021(UTC), Monty Claret on 18/02/2021(UTC), Bent Diamond on 03/04/2021(UTC), Jesse M on 25/02/2022(UTC)
SF100
Posted: 18 February 2021 09:50:48(UTC)
#228

Joined: 08/02/2020(UTC)
Posts: 2,254

Thanks: 4159 times
Was thanked: 3070 time(s) in 1371 post(s)
JayW;153430 wrote:
I'm not sure why anyone is comparing PNL and CGT to 100% equity funds, it's like comparing a Toyota Hilux to 5-series BMW.

Expecting that the next 10-20 years will be like the last 10, and that only 100% equity makes any sense, seems to be a risky approach. Good luck having the willpower to hold on to a pure equity portfolio through a multi-year bear market as it goes down every month, that can't be much fun.

exactly - I was merely appeasing post #163 who seems quite strong-minded about PNL/CGT et al whilst being internally perplexed about how to time the market to avoid 'corrections'......
there does appear to be a lack of cognisance towards the merits of 'diversification' on this recent chat.......you know, the sort of historical negative correlation between different asset classes......perhaps that is no longer applicable in the modern day (but I doubt it).....
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked SF100 for this post.
smg8 on 18/02/2021(UTC), Trudy Scrumptious on 18/02/2021(UTC)
40 Pages«Previous page2021222324Next page»
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets