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
Banchmarks that Fund Managers Use
+ Reply to discussion
Options
Raj K
Posted: 23 January 2025 13:16:08(UTC)
#1

Joined: 22/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,818

Thanks: 6460 times
Was thanked: 6651 time(s) in 2090 post(s)
After watching the latest CT Managed Portfolio presentation on Investor Meets Company. Their growth portfolio has got 88% over 10 years and becuase it pipped the all-share by a small amount 88% versus 81% they champion about it. WTF.

I often get perplexed and frankly think its a cop out when fund managers use benchmarks like the FTSE All Share even though they are investing in collectives that contain listed global companies and or other asset classes. Some examples are OCI and the above mentioned CT Managed Portfolio. For me if they can't measure against the FTSE World what is the point of their existence? AVI used to just have the MSCI ACWI ex US index and only in recent years did they include the global index.

If your just investing in UK smaller companies, then fair enough use a UK smaller companies index but if it actually includes companies listed outside UK then it should be a regional or global index... At the very least they should include the FTSE ALL share and the World index IMO
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
4 users thanked Raj K for this post.
Dexi on 23/01/2025(UTC), Levi Lama on 23/01/2025(UTC), ANDREW FOSTER on 23/01/2025(UTC), Dan L on 24/01/2025(UTC)
Keith Cobby
Posted: 23 January 2025 13:27:47(UTC)
#2

Joined: 07/03/2012(UTC)
Posts: 5,061
I don't think fund benchmarking matters because it is only performance against your own expectations that is relevant to us. CT Managed Growth (which had it's own thread yesterday) is part of the same management company as FCIT so why would anyone buy it with it's 10 year return (SPTR) of 88% when FCIT's is 220%. The Income Portfolio returned 50% over 10 years but this is behind the UK Equity Income sector and far behind the Global Equity Income sector. The (amiable) manager should have retired by now.
Back to top Quote
Thrugelmir
Posted: 23 January 2025 13:38:09(UTC)
#3

Joined: 01/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 5,317
Raj K;332023 wrote:
After watching the latest CT Managed Portfolio presentation on Investor Meets Company. Their growth portfolio has got 88% over 10 years and becuase it pipped the all-share by a small amount 88% versus 81% they champion about it. WTF.

I often get perplexed and frankly think its a cop out when fund managers use benchmarks like the FTSE All Share even though they are investing in collectives that contain listed global companies and or other asset classes. Some examples are OCI and the above mentioned CT Managed Portfolio. For me if they can't measure against the FTSE World what is the point of their existence? AVI used to just have the MSCI ACWI ex US index and only in recent years did they include the global index.

If your just investing in UK smaller companies, then fair enough use a UK smaller companies index but if it actually includes companies listed outside UK then it should be a regional or global index... At the very least they should include the FTSE ALL share and the World index IMO


CT Managed Portfolio has a 46% weighting to the UK and the next largest the US at 9%. World indices would appear irrelevant.

AVI holds less than 10% in the UK listed sector. While Japan and USA combined is some 40%.

Apples and oranges comparison.
Back to top Quote
Raj K
Posted: 23 January 2025 13:56:05(UTC)
#5

Joined: 22/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,818

Thanks: 6460 times
Was thanked: 6651 time(s) in 2090 post(s)
Thrugelmir;332027 wrote:
Raj K;332023 wrote:
After watching the latest CT Managed Portfolio presentation on Investor Meets Company. Their growth portfolio has got 88% over 10 years and becuase it pipped the all-share by a small amount 88% versus 81% they champion about it. WTF.

I often get perplexed and frankly think its a cop out when fund managers use benchmarks like the FTSE All Share even though they are investing in collectives that contain listed global companies and or other asset classes. Some examples are OCI and the above mentioned CT Managed Portfolio. For me if they can't measure against the FTSE World what is the point of their existence? AVI used to just have the MSCI ACWI ex US index and only in recent years did they include the global index.

If your just investing in UK smaller companies, then fair enough use a UK smaller companies index but if it actually includes companies listed outside UK then it should be a regional or global index... At the very least they should include the FTSE ALL share and the World index IMO


CT Managed Portfolio has a 46% weighting to the UK and the next largest the US at 9%. World indices would appear irrelevant.

AVI holds less than 10% in the UK listed sector. While Japan and USA combined is some 40%.

Apples and oranges comparison.


Unless those restrictions are cast in stone within the mandate, for example does CT have to have 50% exposure to UK listed companies and the rest globally? If not then the manager is free to pick the exposure they want. They could have had 60% exposure to US via Investment trusts for examples.

AVI does not have any restrictions, their excuse being there are too few listed holding companies etc in the states. For me its all nonsense and the manager then gets way with plotting graphs agains the easiest of indexes on their factsheets. ....

Keith I appreciate we each have our own benchmark but I still think the managers should accuratey set their benchmarks. If they dont meet them then fair enough we can make a judgment for ourselves to decide if we want to be invested with them or ditch them for the comparable index.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
1 user thanked Raj K for this post.
Jesse M on 23/01/2025(UTC)
smg8
Posted: 23 January 2025 15:10:06(UTC)
#4

Joined: 26/04/2020(UTC)
Posts: 3,365

Thanks: 5702 times
Was thanked: 13288 time(s) in 2750 post(s)
Raj K;332023 wrote:
After watching the latest CT Managed Portfolio presentation on Investor Meets Company. Their growth portfolio has got 88% over 10 years and becuase it pipped the all-share by a small amount 88% versus 81% they champion about it. WTF.



Whilst using an easier benchmark is of course "cheating" to try to make performance look better, I'd say the choice of the benchmark should be the least of the concerns of anyone unfortunate enough to hold this one!

Thrugelmir;332027 wrote:


CT Managed Portfolio has a 46% weighting to the UK and the next largest the US at 9%. World indices would appear irrelevant.

AVI holds less than 10% in the UK listed sector. While Japan and USA combined is some 40%.

Apples and oranges comparison.


You must know something they don't....OP specifically mentions the growth portfolio.

Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
1 user thanked smg8 for this post.
Guest on 23/01/2025(UTC)
Thrugelmir
Posted: 23 January 2025 15:38:47(UTC)
#6

Joined: 01/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 5,317
Which major index uses a look through basis to determine country allocation? Rather than the country in which the Company holds it's primary listing.
Back to top Quote
Johan De Silva
Posted: 23 January 2025 15:53:09(UTC)
#7

Joined: 22/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 4,413
The clue to the underperformance vs the world index is that trust should have matched sector and regional allocation to that of the index it tracks. It should then outperform the world index on the way up.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
Big boy
Posted: 23 January 2025 17:18:57(UTC)
#8

Joined: 20/01/2015(UTC)
Posts: 6,676
I think Benchmarking causes many problems and is not fair when compared against a Fund with all the expenses etc.

With Benchmark matching its far better to buy the Index imo.

I believe Funds in same sector should be measured against the Sector they are in. I would rather buy a Fund which is not measured against an Index as IMO it adds no value..

Being constrained as a Manger puts you in the same boat as every one else so you finish up buying overvalued and selling undervalued. ie the Woodford effect.

Many FMs I knew were not matched against a Benchmark and I suspect the freedom was beneficial.
Back to top Quote
Cole Barnett
Posted: 24 January 2025 07:54:13(UTC)
#9

Joined: 23/01/2025(UTC)
Posts: 1
Thank you so much for the info.
Back to top Quote
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets