Monks Inv Trust

[richfool]

The Monks Investment Trust PLC (MNKS)

Regulated Information Classification: Half Yearly Financial Report.
Results for the six months to 31 October 2021

Over the six-month period, the Company produced a positive net asset value (NAV)* return of 6.5% compared to an increase of 8.9% for the FTSE World Index (in sterling), both in total return terms. The share price total return for the same period was -0.9%. The shares ended the period trading at a discount of 4.3% to the Company's NAV*.

¾ The Monks Investment Trust seeks to build a diversified portfolio of global equities that is well placed to capture growth resulting from structural economic and societal changes.

¾ There are an increasing number of technology-led or digitised companies which operate across the economic spectrum.

¾ Innovation is speeding up and spreading across the economy - the Monks portfolio is well positioned to capture this growth.

¾ Revenue earnings per share were 2.76p. No interim dividend is to be paid.

¾ Since the current team took over management of Monks on 27 March 2015, the NAV* total return has been +202.0%, the share price total return +229.7% and the comparative index total return +126.3%.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/monks-inv ... 00027380U/

[cinelli]

I notice that Monks is down 15% since Christmas.

Cinelli

[seagles]

I notice that Monks is down 15% since Christmas.

Cinelli

Yes, my purchase of Monks certainly doesn't look that good. SMT seems to have taken a hit as well. Am sure longterm this will be forgotten and the usual gains will reappear. You have to have faith in the managers (in the longterm)

[jackdaww]

.

and yet common or garden CTY city of london grinds relentlessly upwards..

wish i had more ..

[seagles]

.

and yet common or garden CTY city of london grinds relentlessly upwards..

wish i had more ..

Take your point but CTY is a different "animal" to MNKs or SMT. I could say that my FCIT has seen a positive position but have held that a bit longer than the others, though that is showing a 2% drop today. as always depends when you buy and what you are looking for.

[77ss]

.

and yet common or garden CTY city of london grinds relentlessly upwards.....

I think you have an odd definition of 'relentlessy upwards'.

Over the past 5 discrete years, CTY has fallen in 2 of them - as has MNKS.

Overall the share price of MNKS has risen by 104% - that of CTY by less than 1%

[Adamski]

Overall the share price of MNKS has risen by 104% - that of CTY by less than 1%

Whilst agree Monks has outperformed over last 3/5 years. It has been a rolller coaster ride, with every tech pull back, taking a big hit. Whereas CTY / GB stocks is / are doing well since the Covid correction, and with a yield of nearly 5% is good for income investors.

[Arborbridge]

Monks has become more volatile (it used to be really slow and staid) but more speedy from around 2016.
CTY grinds upwards, but it does seem a slow and hard grind to make much gain. You pays you money and takes your choice: I have both. It seems that MNKS was well placed after Brexit, but the UK focussed funds like CTY suffered, as did my HYP.



https://www2.trustnet.com/Tools/Charting.aspx?typeCode=T_FITMNKS,T_FITCTY

Arb.

[BullDog]

Monks has become more volatile (it used to be really slow and staid) but more speedy from around 2016.
CTY grinds upwards, but it does seem a slow and hard grind to make much gain. You pays you money and takes your choice: I have both. It seems that MNKS was well placed after Brexit, but the UK focussed funds like CTY suffered, as did my HYP.



https://www2.trustnet.com/Tools/Charting.aspx?typeCode=T_FITMNKS,T_FITCTY

Arb.

Thanks. CITY didn't do much grinding anywhere between Feb 2014 and Feb 2020 according to your graphic? Not something I would consider buying.

[Dod101]

2016 was about the time that Monks got a change of manager in Charles Plowden because it seems that Baillie Gifford were not happy with its progress. He introduced a few spicier shares and improved the performance. He though retired last year.

I am surprised that anyone would try to compare the two ITs though because they are and clearly are intended to be two very different beast. Like most of the BG ITs, Monks is an out and out growth trust whereas City of London is just the opposite, an out and out income trust. Top make any meaningful comparison we would need to look at the total return, and although I hold neither I would imagine that Monks, at least in recent years, has done better on that basis. Not sure if the performance figures are total return or just capital.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

2016 was about the time that Monks got a change of manager in Charles Plowden because it seems that Baillie Gifford were not happy with its progress. He introduced a few spicier shares and improved the performance. He though retired last year.

I am surprised that anyone would try to compare the two ITs though because they are and clearly are intended to be two very different beast. Like most of the BG ITs, Monks is an out and out growth trust whereas City of London is just the opposite, an out and out income trust. Top make any meaningful comparison we would need to look at the total return, and although I hold neither I would imagine that Monks, at least in recent years, has done better on that basis. Not sure if the performance figures are total return or just capital.

Dod

Those charts were with dividends re-invested. I'm not sure of the exact definition of that, or how they actually arrive at the result, but I think it's equivalent to total return.

I agree that one is not comparing apples with apples, but someone else mentioned the two, so I thought I would publish the difference so people could see the context of the conversation. BTW, it's comparison like this which long ago persuaded me that "HYP-like" or HY investment was not necessarily (or likely to be) the best way to build a pot for retirement. Indeed, if one simply checks now and again the various average TR for categories on Trustnet, one would come to the same conclusion.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Thanks. CITY didn't do much grinding anywhere between Feb 2014 and Feb 2020 according to your graphic? Not something I would consider buying.

Indeed, you can pick any section to prove a point, but overall the story is a hard won slow grind. This is not so bad if you are in it for the income and are content to allow the capital to increase painfully slowly (if at all at times) - that is if one does not intend to sell. CTY has been a notable disappointment in recent years on the capital front, but as an income provider in rertirement it is probably still a valid choice. Living on income, one might take the view that one does not care much about capital anyway, since the idea is never to realise it: it is only the seedcorn for one's income provision.

Arb.

[scrumpyjack]

Living on income, one might take the view that one does not care much about capital anyway, since the idea is never to realise it: it is only the seedcorn for one's income provision.
Arb.

Except that one may take the view that the capital value is the market assessment of the discounted future income that the security is estimated to provide.
Still this argument will carry on for eternity with no one's mind being changed

[Dod101]

2016 was about the time that Monks got a change of manager in Charles Plowden because it seems that Baillie Gifford were not happy with its progress. He introduced a few spicier shares and improved the performance. He though retired last year.

I am surprised that anyone would try to compare the two ITs though because they are and clearly are intended to be two very different beast. Like most of the BG ITs, Monks is an out and out growth trust whereas City of London is just the opposite, an out and out income trust. Top make any meaningful comparison we would need to look at the total return, and although I hold neither I would imagine that Monks, at least in recent years, has done better on that basis. Not sure if the performance figures are total return or just capital.

Dod

Those charts were with dividends re-invested. I'm not sure of the exact definition of that, or how they actually arrive at the result, but I think it's equivalent to total return.

I agree that one is not comparing apples with apples, but someone else mentioned the two, so I thought I would publish the difference so people could see the context of the conversation. BTW, it's comparison like this which long ago persuaded me that "HYP-like" or HY investment was not necessarily (or likely to be) the best way to build a pot for retirement. Indeed, if one simply checks now and again the various average TR for categories on Trustnet, one would come to the same conclusion.

Arb.

Thanks for the clarification. I can see the argument for using City of London for income but it is very much for a Doris. As you say, for a HYP builder it is a disaster. I have always felt that and even as an income investor I would never touch City of London. I simply do not understand why it has enthusiastic supporters amongst many on these Boards, most of whom should surely know better, whether a HYPer or not.

Dod

[monabri]

Re-plotted, dividends reinvested over a 10 year period. The "pot builder" would have been better with Monks...no surprise. However, until the end of 2016 it wasn't as clear cut. June 23rd 2016, Brexit vote......coincidence?

Where does one place one's bet for the next n years?

[Arborbridge]

Thanks for the clarification. I can see the argument for using City of London for income but it is very much for a Doris. As you say, for a HYP builder it is a disaster. I have always felt that and even as an income investor I would never touch City of London. I simply do not understand why it has enthusiastic supporters amongst many on these Boards, most of whom should surely know better, whether a HYPer or not.

Dod

Probably inertia! CTY has suffered in the past few years, but it built a reputation for steadiness over decades, which is quite attractive. I can't say I am one of the enthusiastic supporters (I haven't seen much evidence of them) but as part of my IT basket, it more or less deserves its place, although its crown has slipped.

In terms of an incentive to sell, it isn't there just yet - indeed recently it has looked more perky. My long term XIRR as of end December 2021 was 7.35%, compared with similar ITs, SCF 8.63% and EDIN 8.03% - and I have owned them all for similar (long enough) durations to make comparison valid. While it continues to be a big hitter for income, I probably won't sell - though I am adding more to other ITs to compensate its lacklustre performance.


Arb.

[Arborbridge]

[quote="monabri"]Re-plotted, dividends reinvested over a 10 year period. The "pot builder" would have been better with Monks...no surprise. However, until the end of 2016 it wasn't as clear cut. June 23rd 2016, Brexit vote......coincidence?

Where does one place one's bet for the next n years?

Quite so, Brexit did some damage to some funds more than others. CTY and my HYP both got it wrong, MUT got it right, and ITs like Monks had the possibility to invest in US growth stocks which ran away in comparison.
Anyone with a brief to invest mainly in the UK would have come off badly by comparison, though some UK trusts clearly had better stock picking preparation during the pre-Brexit times.

For those who like playing about with such things, one may be surprised to discover that CTY has out-performed that wunderkind, Terry Smith's SSON, over the past year. Make of that what you will, but I might be buying some SSON before the end of the ISA year.

Arb.

[BullDog]

Re-plotted, dividends reinvested over a 10 year period. The "pot builder" would have been better with Monks...no surprise. However, until the end of 2016 it wasn't as clear cut. June 23rd 2016, Brexit vote......coincidence?

Where does one place one's bet for the next n years?

Quite so, Brexit did some damage to some funds more than others. CTY and my HYP both got it wrong, MUT got it right, and ITs like Monks had the possibility to invest in US growth stocks which ran away in comparison.
Anyone with a brief to invest mainly in the UK would have come off badly by comparison, though some UK trusts clearly had better stock picking preparation during the pre-Brexit times.

For those who like playing about with such things, one may be surprised to discover that CTY has out-performed that wunderkind, Terry Smith's SSON, over the past year. Make of that what you will, but I might be buying some SSON before the end of the ISA year.

Arb.

Nope. It's not really a surprise and buying SSON is probably a good bet presently. It has had a dismal twelve months. The best time ever to buy SSON was back in the depths of the covid panic when it briefly dropped below its 1000p floatation price. That was a bargain!

[mc2fool]

Re-plotted, dividends reinvested over a 10 year period.

Aha! A spot-the-difference competition! ........ I've got it! Arb's has %s down the side, yours has £s. Do I win a prize?

(IOW, Arb's was with dividends reinvested over a 10 year period too.)

[Arborbridge]

Re-plotted, dividends reinvested over a 10 year period.

Aha! A spot-the-difference competition! ........ I've got it! Arb's has %s down the side, yours has £s. Do I win a prize?

(IOW, Arb's was with dividends reinvested over a 10 year period too.)

The important one to look at, also, is without dividends reinvested. In that case, one will see that CTY has been flat-lining across ten years, so the capital has only maintained nominal value, not RPI value. The dividend has been bought partly at the expense of one's nest egg's purchasing power. However, at least one still has a nest egg!


Arb.

PS, I too wondered what the point was of that second chart pic.