The Lemon Fool

These are my recently reconfigured growth oriented portfolios:

1. BRIG, BRSA, BRWM, FCIT, HFEL, PHI, SMIF, WWH.
2. AEI, BNKR, BERI, BRWM, NCYF, HFEL, NAIT, PHI
3. AAS, ATT, BRSA, CLDN, HGEN, IBT, JSGI, RCP, SMT, YCA.

The first two are ISAs while the third is a taxable trading account.
I will probably move some of the trading account investments to ISAs as soon as I have more ISA allowances.
Still a work in progress so any suggestions welcome.

Y

yieldhog wrote:These are my recently reconfigured growth oriented portfolios:

1. BRIG, BRSA, BRWM, FCIT, HFEL, PHI, SMIF, WWH.
2. AEI, BNKR, BERI, BRWM, NCYF, HFEL, NAIT, PHI
3. AAS, ATT, BRSA, CLDN, HGEN, IBT, JSGI, RCP, SMT, YCA.

The first two are ISAs while the third is a taxable trading account.
I will probably move some of the trading account investments to ISAs as soon as I have more ISA allowances.
Still a work in progress so any suggestions welcome.

Y

Well I for one was surprised to see HFEL in a "growth" portfolio.
Don't get me wrong, I hold some myself. However "growth" has been negative for quite a while with HFEL.

yieldhog wrote:These are my recently reconfigured growth oriented portfolios:

1. BRIG, BRSA, BRWM, FCIT, HFEL, PHI, SMIF, WWH.
2. AEI, BNKR, BERI, BRWM, NCYF, HFEL, NAIT, PHI
3. AAS, ATT, BRSA, CLDN, HGEN, IBT, JSGI, RCP, SMT, YCA.

The first two are ISAs while the third is a taxable trading account.
'I will probably move some of the trading account investments to ISAs as soon as I have more ISA allowances.
Still a work in progress so any suggestions welcome.

Y

One immediate comment.

NAIT is a stinker. Over the past 5 years its a shrinker too! Quite how an S&P 500 focussed IT could contrive to lose money puzzled me, so I had a look at their top 10 holdings. The 'magnificent seven' are conspicuous by their absence and the IT has just 7.5% allocated to Infotech.

You might wish to consider JAM or JGGI or similar.

Not what one would expect to seeing a "growth " portfolio to the extent that I was wondering if the wrong set of funds had been posted by mistake?

Hi there, 26 funds seems like quite a lot, i guess some are under 5%. I'd hold a tracker and a few growth funds if looking for growth. Or just a combination of trackers if performance is similar? Cheers

Thank you all for some constructive comments.

I agree that NAIT has not done well in recent years but over 20 years it has more than tripled and provided a reasonable dividend. Perhaps better described as growth and income fund rather than purely growth.

Likewise with HFEL. Over the past 5 years it's been a poor price performer but over the 20 years before that it was up 280%. Plus it's consistently provided very high dividend payouts. Again, maybe more of a growth and income trust.

I looked at JAM and JGGI as potential additions for US exposure but they both look a bit toppy at the moment, as do all the usual suspect main constituent holdings.

I agree that 26 funds is a lot if looked at as a single portfolio but I like to hedge my bets and not put too many eggs in one basket. Trackers are all very well and can simplify things considerably. However, how many trackers would you need to capture all of the many different facets of world equity and fixed income markets?

As I said, the funds are a work in progress and besides serving a purpose they provide me with a challenge to keep me mentally up to speed in my old age. The time will come when they will all get sold and replaced with a smaller number of funds including a few Vanguard offerings.

Y

'I agree that 26 funds is a lot if looked at as a single portfolio but I like to hedge my bets and not put too many eggs in one basket. Trackers are all very well and can simplify things considerably. However, how many trackers would you need to capture all of the many different facets of world equity and fixed income markets? As I said, the funds are a work in progress and besides serving a purpose they provide me with a challenge to keep me mentally up to speed in my old age.'

If it's a dubious approach to portfolio construction then your last reason is enough to justify it, for you of course, not necessarily for everyone else.
26 different funds holding different assets: the more you do of that the closer you move to a market portfolio which you can hold cheaper with a tracker. Perhaps better not to pay for active management yet get something close to 'passive' investing.
How many trackers would you need? Why wouldn't it be two, one for equities and one for bonds; or perhaps one fund which was a collection of equity and bond funds of the nature and in the proportions that suit you?
OK, two might not capture 'all of the many different facets', but you need to look at how much you might forego in returns not having small cap or emerging markets or BBB- bonds. I think you'll find it has been trivial, and might be trivial in future. There's a lot to be said for simplicity, except it doesn't exercise the mind.

MDW1954 wrote:

Moderator Message:
JohnW, please make sure to include the name of the person you are quoting, in your quote. The standard quote tool does this for you. You have been asked about this before. --MDW1954

Thanks. Yes, I was asked to follow the rules about quoting. The rules I found didn't advise me on that. Can you point me to that rule, please?

JohnW wrote:

MDW1954 wrote:

Moderator Message:
JohnW, please make sure to include the name of the person you are quoting, in your quote. The standard quote tool does this for you. You have been asked about this before. --MDW1954

Thanks. Yes, I was asked to follow the rules about quoting. The rules I found didn't advise me on that. Can you point me to that rule, please?

Sure. Glad to help.

It falls under the first rule:

To make this a valued and successful discussion forum, LemonFool asks all users to be respectful, understanding and helpful to other posters.

It isn't helpful to other users if they have to spend time working backwards up the thread to see who made a specific point that has been quoted. That's why the quoting tool does it automatically.

MDW1954

monabri wrote:Not what one would expect to seeing a "growth " portfolio to the extent that I was wondering if the wrong set of funds had been posted by mistake?

What would you expect to see in a growth portfolio? If you could name maybe six ITs rather than just sectors or geographic locations, that would be constructive.
Thanks,
Y

yieldhog wrote:

monabri wrote:Not what one would expect to seeing a "growth " portfolio to the extent that I was wondering if the wrong set of funds had been posted by mistake?

What would you expect to see in a growth portfolio? If you could name maybe six ITs rather than just sectors or geographic locations, that would be constructive.
Thanks,
Y

My suggestions for an equity growth portolio would be: BUT, ATST, JGGI, and maybe AGT (Monks?).

My equity income portfolio includes: BRSA, LWDB, EDIN, DIG, MYI, IVPG, and JEGI, AAIF, MCT, BERI. EAT.

I hold all the above except Monks.

yieldhog wrote:

monabri wrote:Not what one would expect to seeing a "growth " portfolio to the extent that I was wondering if the wrong set of funds had been posted by mistake?

What would you expect to see in a growth portfolio? If you could name maybe six ITs rather than just sectors or geographic locations, that would be constructive.
Thanks,
Y

Scottish Mortgage (SMT) **
RIT Capital (RCP) **
MId Wynd (MWY)
AVI Global (AGT)
JP Morgan Growth & Income (JGGI) **
F&C IT (FCIT)
BMO Global Smaller (GSCT) **

** I hold shares in these

monabri wrote:

yieldhog wrote:
What would you expect to see in a growth portfolio? If you could name maybe six ITs rather than just sectors or geographic locations, that would be constructive.
Thanks,
Y

Scottish Mortgage (SMT) **
RIT Capital (RCP) **
MId Wynd (MWY)
AVI Global (AGT)
JP Morgan Growth & Income (JGGI) **
F&C IT (FCIT)
BMO Global Smaller (GSCT) **

** I hold shares in these

I hold all of these except MWY, AGT, and GSCT. These three all look worth a closer look, so thank you for drawing my attention to them.

Y