Jesse M;337477 wrote:smg8;337432 wrote:
Ah, brings back memories of the forum herd portfolio thread.
.
Just for a laugh this was the forum herd portfolio voted on around 2+ years ago.
Just shows how forum favourites have fallen out of view/discussions.
Unfortunately I don't have time to work out how it would have gone.
HERD PORTFOLIO
Top Ten based on proportionate votes of these funds only.
ATTACK 38.7%SMT @ 17.6%
TRGF @ 8.6%
BGPC @ 6.9%
PHI @ 5.6%
MIDFIELD 37.8%HVPE @ 12.9%
Fundsmith @ 11.6%
Global Tracker @ 7.7%
Monks @ 5.6%
DEFENCE 23.6%CGT/CGAR @ 15.0%
PNL/Trojan @ 8.6%
Unfortunately, the Goalie and Subs did not get enough votes so hopefully the other team doesn't try to score.
It is just a bit of fun to see forum sentiment - a snapshot in time.
What’s fascinating here is how some funds that once dominated conversations now receive little to no mention, while others that seemed promising in the past now look like poor choices in hindsight.
Take BG Positive Change, for instance. It’s easy to look back and think, “what kind of idiot would buy that?” when it's delivered a mere 1.2% per annum over three years. Yet, at the time, it appeared to be a solid option for a growth-focused investor.
This highlights the danger of chasing top performers from x period. They may seem like genius picks today, and if the trend continues, they’ll look brilliant in another three years. However, we feed ourselves a narrative around why the fund that is top of the performance table has done well, and pretend it isn't the performance that has attracted us, and convince ourselves that if it underperformed in future we'd buy more and top up on the dips.
But the reality, and what we see people doing time and again, tells a different story.