Federico F;204281 wrote:
On the other hand, RGO "only" fell 7% in 1Q20 when the world appeared to come to an end. I don't like the performance either but a) this is a fund very well run and b) performances should be assessed on a medium term basis. Granted, if one bought this fund with the idea that it would protect against market falls, it would be disappointed at the moment. My opinion, of course. Re Artemis, I don't particularly like the fund house but it is without doubt a decent fund. That said my new monies are going to the passives (Fidelity IW, Vanguard All Cap etc.) - I am not clever enough managing styles, PE etc. across multiple funds!
I certainly agree it has been a good fund, with a good long term track record etc and of course we shouldn't be assessing YTD performance of funds on 21st January.
But the reason it didn't fall much in 1Q20 is due to the fact it had a lot of tech at the time, and the market moved toward tech/stay at home and rerated that investable universe. As such there are a lot of funds that gave the impression of being "lower risk" because they did well in that sell off - Blue Whale, SMT, etc.
This sell off is driven by different factors, and it seems to be that the higher the PE ratio fund the bigger the hit. The aforementioned "lower risk" funds are some of the hardest hit. As such I'd expect Rathbone Global Opps to be nearer the top of the casualties than the bottom, as it's an out and out growth fund (the opposite applied last time, value funds sold off hardest this time value funds are in positive territory for the year).
I should imagine this wobble/sell off may lead to many reassessing what risk appetite they have and how they categorise their holdings accordingly.