Monks Inv Trust

[monabri]

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.

Arb.

I would concur that with divs reinvested then we are looking at total return. If one refers to the Hargreaves Lansdown comparison tools.. (and adding in an extra dimension in the form of Vanguard's World accumulation ETF - "VWRP" total return). The 5 year TR figures for CTY and MNKS reported by HL tally with the figures above (27.22% & 91.25% plus/minus rounding).

https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discoun ... ion/charts

Total return over 5 years for CTY,MNK & VWRP






That pot builder might have been better selecting the cheap tracker at this current point in time.

[monabri]

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.

I noticed the flat lining (playing around with the plot options in Trustnet )and came to the same conclusion vis-a-vis RPI.

I'd add that the Trustnet graphs add the words "Performance Values rebased to Pound Sterling".....another little factor!

[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

You do realise that the performance of CTY is actually better than your own choice in this sector, MUT, over ten years? The interruption in CTY has only happened as a result of Brexit. So rather than saying CTY=BAD , MUT=GOOD it's more a question of fluctuations in fortunes over particular epochs: they are both fishing in the same pond.

[monabri]

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

You do realise that the performance of CTY is actually better than your own choice in this sector, MUT, over ten years? The interruption in CTY has only happened as a result of Brexit. So rather than saying CTY=BAD , MUT=GOOD it's more a question of fluctuations in fortunes over particular epochs: they are both fishing in the same pond.

Over 10 years CTY edges it in terms of TR over MUT (but it is a small win).

Over the last 5 years, MUT total returns are much higher than those of CTY ( factor of nearly 2). In the last year or so, MUT has been 'married' to Perpetual Income & Growth PLI so that's another factor to consider.

[Dod101]

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.

I held Edinburgh for a very long time and then impatience got the better of me and I sold. Looks quite a good move judging by your number. That was in the middle of 2018 when I bought back into SSE. I suspect it will be a better long term bet but who knows?

Dod

[Dod101]

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

You do realise that the performance of CTY is actually better than your own choice in this sector, MUT, over ten years? The interruption in CTY has only happened as a result of Brexit. So rather than saying CTY=BAD , MUT=GOOD it's more a question of fluctuations in fortunes over particular epochs: they are both fishing in the same pond.

Well the same thing should have happened to MUT but appears not to have done so.

Dod

[Dod101]

[q

Over the last 5 years, MUT total returns are much higher than those of CTY ( factor of nearly 2). In the last year or so, MUT has been 'married' to Perpetual Income & Growth PLI so that's another factor to consider.

That would be the factor I was forgetting in answer to Arb. MUT took an initiative and made itself a good bit bigger thus reducing its expenses which may have helped its outperformance although I would have thought that that has scarcely had time to do that.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

[q

Over the last 5 years, MUT total returns are much higher than those of CTY ( factor of nearly 2). In the last year or so, MUT has been 'married' to Perpetual Income & Growth PLI so that's another factor to consider.

That would be the factor I was forgetting in answer to Arb. MUT took an initiative and made itself a good bit bigger thus reducing its expenses which may have helped its outperformance although I would have thought that that has scarcely had time to do that.

Dod

What it comes down to is that one can be lucky or unlucky. It's probably best to do a little of this and of that, though in recent years I've tended to consolidate holdings into larger "chunks" and fewer funds. I am probably more patient than you, or perhaps just realise that my record of buying in and selling out hasn't been great.
I take years to come to such a decision: then's it's usually wrong!
Arb.