Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to NotSure,csearle,brightncheerful,Dormouse,Silverstar64, for Donating to support the site

changes to ARBIT

Closed-end funds and OEICs
Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 6541
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1593 times
Been thanked: 2396 times

changes to ARBIT

#358664

Postby Arborbridge » November 21st, 2020, 9:25 am

Following a request on another thread, I've decided to put up the latest version of my Inome IT basket. This also is conveniently timed to record the change made last week: namely that the PLI holding was converted to a holding in MUT, by merger/takeover.



Notice that I have included my holding of 3iN due to its IT like properties and my feeling that it sits more happily here than in my HYP. I know others would disagree, but as far as I can see, it's a moot point.

The ratio between the capital weight of ARBIT:HYP is now 1:1.25. Originally it was nearer to 1:2, but over the years the ARBIT price has improved, and I have also probably reinvested more in it than HYP.

Arb.

ReallyVeryFoolish
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1474
Joined: October 5th, 2019, 12:06 pm
Has thanked: 1174 times
Been thanked: 660 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358668

Postby ReallyVeryFoolish » November 21st, 2020, 9:34 am

A nice selection, I can see why you would be satisfied with it. If it were mine I'd be tempted to eject one of the more canine trusts in favour of Smithson, just add a bit of additional potential growth twist to it.

RVF

Dod101
Lemon Half
Posts: 7715
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 1832 times
Been thanked: 3228 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358671

Postby Dod101 » November 21st, 2020, 9:44 am

In the last year I have ditched Edinburgh and Temple Bar but by the nature of these things they will no doubt come good again. You now hold both the Murray Trusts. I do too and have been happy with both.

Do you hold any growth trusts?

Dod

everhopeful
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 158
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358672

Postby everhopeful » November 21st, 2020, 9:56 am

Thanks for sharing. I would be concerned about a lot of cross holdings among some of these. CTY, EDIN, MRCH, MUT, LWBD and IVI all hold the FTSE 100 big beasts such as tobacco and pharma in their top holdings. If you also have a HYP this may well hold similar stocks. If the FTSE 100 stages a recovery with more good vaccine news and perhaps a BREXIT deal you would do well. The international and particularly the Far East trusts give diversity of course.

monabri
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4750
Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 602 times
Been thanked: 1598 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358684

Postby monabri » November 21st, 2020, 10:27 am

Because ARBIT contains some 'foreigners', I wonder how much future income might be protected / affected? We all can readily see when a LSE share cuts a dividend (summarised on Dividend Data website, for example) but it is more difficult to know what is happening dividend wise to companies held by HFEL, SOI. That brings the question round to should ARB v ARBIT only take into account the unit incomes from the likes of CTY, MRCH (mainly UK). After all, ARBIT has a bigger pond to fish in....is ARB at a disadvantage and thus the manager has some mitigation to his possible reprimand for recent poor performance of ARB HYP ! ( :) ).

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 6381
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 2749 times
Been thanked: 5179 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358693

Postby Itsallaguess » November 21st, 2020, 10:53 am

monabri wrote:
Because ARBIT contains some 'foreigners', I wonder how much future income might be protected / affected?

We all can readily see when a LSE share cuts a dividend (summarised on Dividend Data website, for example) but it is more difficult to know what is happening dividend wise to companies held by HFEL, SOI.

That brings the question round to should ARB v ARBIT only take into account the unit incomes from the likes of CTY, MRCH (mainly UK).

After all, ARBIT has a bigger pond to fish in....is ARB at a disadvantage and thus the manager has some mitigation to his possible reprimand for recent poor performance of ARB HYP ! ( :) ).


When one income-strategy chooses to tie one hand behind it's own back in terms of the market that it's 'allowed' to fish in, I'm not sure a fair comparison with another income-strategy would be to ask that second income-strategy to cripple itself in the same manner too...

One of the main aspects of looking at different markets is to introduce increased diversification. That's a benefit stamped on the ARBIT boilerplate...

ARB vs ARBIT seems like a completely valid ongoing comparison between two different income-strategies to me...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

monabri
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4750
Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 602 times
Been thanked: 1598 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358700

Postby monabri » November 21st, 2020, 12:02 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:[

ARB vs ARBIT seems like a completely valid ongoing comparison between two different income-strategies to me...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


I certainly agree it is two different income strategies but I "thought" ARB was comparing his HYP versus "leaving it to the professionals" but he has "allowed" the professionals an advantage. What I am contending is that the income contribution to ARBIT from the likes of HFEL/SOI should be removed to level up the ARB v ARBIT playing field? But then, it's probably getting too much hassle?

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 6541
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1593 times
Been thanked: 2396 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358721

Postby Arborbridge » November 21st, 2020, 1:00 pm

everhopeful wrote:Thanks for sharing. I would be concerned about a lot of cross holdings among some of these. CTY, EDIN, MRCH, MUT, LWBD and IVI all hold the FTSE 100 big beasts such as tobacco and pharma in their top holdings. If you also have a HYP this may well hold similar stocks. If the FTSE 100 stages a recovery with more good vaccine news and perhaps a BREXIT deal you would do well. The international and particularly the Far East trusts give diversity of course.


If you also have a HYP this may well hold similar stocks.

Well, that as the whole point of buying them originally. THe fact that they were "HYPlike" was the attraction. The question to resolve was whether buying the standard UK Trusts would give a better performance than a HYP. Of course, the question was never really answered, and possibly wasn't answerable - mainly because I drifted off into adding foreign diversity.
I am not worried about the cross holdings because even though they fish in the same pond, these ITs produce different results. Although similar, some of UK ITs do things differently: LWBD, MRC in particular.

37% of my income here comes from foreign investments.

Arb.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 6541
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1593 times
Been thanked: 2396 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358723

Postby Arborbridge » November 21st, 2020, 1:03 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:A nice selection, I can see why you would be satisfied with it. If it were mine I'd be tempted to eject one of the more canine trusts in favour of Smithson, just add a bit of additional potential growth twist to it.

RVF


I'm recommending Smithson on a shortlist for my daughter, but in my case I am primarily interested in an income basket. I retired in 2010 and live on this basket plus my HYP, some OEICS and the State Pension.

Arb.

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 6381
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 2749 times
Been thanked: 5179 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358724

Postby Itsallaguess » November 21st, 2020, 1:05 pm

monabri wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:[

ARB vs ARBIT seems like a completely valid ongoing comparison between two different income-strategies to me...


I certainly agree it is two different income strategies but I "thought" ARB was comparing his HYP versus "leaving it to the professionals" but he has "allowed" the professionals an advantage.

What I am contending is that the income contribution to ARBIT from the likes of HFEL/SOI should be removed to level up the ARB v ARBIT playing field?

But then, it's probably getting too much hassle?


I think Arb's probably best placed to answer that one then...

I thought it was a simple long-term comparison of income-units between ARB (HYP dividends) vs ARBIT (IT dividends), and that was that, with ARBIT not only of course relying on the managers of the ARBIT Investment Trusts themselves, but also enabling a wider investment universe from which to draw those more diverse ARBIT dividends...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 6541
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1593 times
Been thanked: 2396 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358728

Postby Arborbridge » November 21st, 2020, 1:08 pm

Dod101 wrote:In the last year I have ditched Edinburgh and Temple Bar but by the nature of these things they will no doubt come good again. You now hold both the Murray Trusts. I do too and have been happy with both.

Do you hold any growth trusts?

Dod


Not many. Some growth ITs and OEICS but don't ask me what percentage as I haven't checked for a long while. It's a peripheral activity, and some have been converted in to income trusts over the years.

I did notice the other day that my Fidelity South East Asia is my biggest growth holding, bigger than CTY. This might cause some embarassment if they alter the CGT threshold as I've never bothered to put it in a tax shelter.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 6541
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1593 times
Been thanked: 2396 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358730

Postby Arborbridge » November 21st, 2020, 1:12 pm

monabri wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:[

ARB vs ARBIT seems like a completely valid ongoing comparison between two different income-strategies to me...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


I certainly agree it is two different income strategies but I "thought" ARB was comparing his HYP versus "leaving it to the professionals" but he has "allowed" the professionals an advantage. What I am contending is that the income contribution to ARBIT from the likes of HFEL/SOI should be removed to level up the ARB v ARBIT playing field? But then, it's probably getting too much hassle?


It's a valid point, and quite frankly something which has "crept up" on me!

Originally, ARBIT was purely a UK HYP-ish set up, but I've sinned, and it became corrupted as I looked to bolster up the foreign shares.

I think it's too late to back date any proper comparison by splitting of the foreigners, but I will on whether it is feasible without too much effort. My initial reaction is: not easy at all.

Arb.

Wizard
Lemon Half
Posts: 5076
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 918 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358741

Postby Wizard » November 21st, 2020, 1:33 pm

Arborbridge wrote:
monabri wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:[

ARB vs ARBIT seems like a completely valid ongoing comparison between two different income-strategies to me...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


I certainly agree it is two different income strategies but I "thought" ARB was comparing his HYP versus "leaving it to the professionals" but he has "allowed" the professionals an advantage. What I am contending is that the income contribution to ARBIT from the likes of HFEL/SOI should be removed to level up the ARB v ARBIT playing field? But then, it's probably getting too much hassle?


It's a valid point, and quite frankly something which has "crept up" on me!

Originally, ARBIT was purely a UK HYP-ish set up, but I've sinned, and it became corrupted as I looked to bolster up the foreign shares.

I think it's too late to back date any proper comparison by splitting of the foreigners, but I will on whether it is feasible without too much effort. My initial reaction is: not easy at all.

Arb.

Other than academic interest I do not see the point in making the effort. HYP has a rule on sticking to UK holdings, ARBIT clearly doesn't. I am sure that is just one of a number of differences. But it is still a perfectly valid comparison between the two to see which is serving your objectives best.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 6541
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1593 times
Been thanked: 2396 times

Re: changes to ARBIT

#358780

Postby Arborbridge » November 21st, 2020, 2:59 pm

Wizard wrote:Other than academic interest I do not see the point in making the effort. HYP has a rule on sticking to UK holdings, ARBIT clearly doesn't. I am sure that is just one of a number of differences. But it is still a perfectly valid comparison between the two to see which is serving your objectives best.


Well, yes it would be only academic. It's all in spreadsheets, so in principle, with much copy and pasting..... even so, the unitising would be fraught and it would be difficult to be sure no errors had crept in.
I'm not convinced I have the stomach for it, but there is a certain temptation since it would make a nice project.

Arb.


Return to “Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests