Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

Introduction: My Portfolio
chubby bunny
Posted: 29 July 2017 16:21:03(UTC)
#5

Joined: 31/10/2016(UTC)
Posts: 222

Thanks: 75 times
Was thanked: 297 time(s) in 143 post(s)
Tyrion Lannister;49359 wrote:
One idea I have is to simply select from the top 10 individual stocks held in my favourite funds.

What do you think?


This book investigates doing something similar with the top hedge funds - http://freebook.mebfaber.com/
2 users thanked chubby bunny for this post.
Tyrion Lannister on 29/07/2017(UTC), tom_b on 30/07/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 29 July 2017 16:30:04(UTC)
#24

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,763

Thanks: 604 times
Was thanked: 4224 time(s) in 1639 post(s)
Stephen B.;49358 wrote:
70% returns over 30 years is a factor of about 8 million, i.e. an initial fund size of $10 million would now be worth $80 trillion, which is bigger than all the world's stockmarkets put together ...

It is true that there may be real underlying correlations which are genuinely predictive, but the question is whether you can separate them from all the noise, and whether they remain stable. Long Term Capital Management had found real arbitrage opportunities which worked well - until the bond market hit a regime it hadn't experienced before, and then it collapsed and nearly took the whole market with it. Also of course there are now lots of people looking for such opportunities, and the nature of arbitrage is that when enough people do it the gap will close. Personally I think the only things which are likely to be reasonably stable are the ones rooted in basic psychology, e.g. herd behaviour, i.e. people don't like being out of step with everyone else.


That's why hedge funds make cash distributions .. Every year, the Medallion fund (and many large hedge funds) pays out huge returns in cash, because otherwise the fund would either become the whole market, or (more likely) stop working.

I look for inefficiencies in herd behaviour .. But it means accepting a level of volatility that doesn't scale up well .. e.g. 20x leverage on a sector ETF that moves 5% down, becomes a 100% move down .. The technical limit to what I can return through a market cycle without leverage is just short of 20% annually (actually 18.6% or so) – which I wouldn't expect to do, because I'm not perfectly efficient.

Getting from a 20% annual return to 40% might involve using 10-20x more leverage, and having 10-100x more positions .. What RenTech do is the same principle as LTCM, but they push the Black Swan event down to a smaller and smaller probability .. It's always there when you're highly leveraged, but I think I recall they'd got it down to a once in 60,000 year probability (est).
Tug Boat
Posted: 29 July 2017 16:34:33(UTC)
#25

Joined: 16/12/2014(UTC)
Posts: 167

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 239 time(s) in 96 post(s)
There was a couple of TV programs, articles in newspapers and magazines about control theory applied to the markets. It was yonks ago before proper internet. I was working on digital filters at the time. There was an article a few weeks ago in the telegraph about second derivitive indicators in the markets by that double barrel chap, I worked on these for engine control. I wasn't clever enough to get the signal out of the noise. I wouldn't read much into that article.

For the guy who started this, here's what I do for equity investments:

I usually buy ITs and I need income to buy champagne and rugby tickets

1. It must have a reasonable yield
2. It must have an international remit
3. It must have a discount
4. It must be well respected
5. It must have poor or flat line performance over a reasonably long period.

I then look at the annual report and holdings

My last buys were in January and were BUT and BNKR.
2 users thanked Tug Boat for this post.
Mr Helpful on 30/07/2017(UTC), antigricer on 30/07/2017(UTC)
Stephen B.
Posted: 29 July 2017 16:35:54(UTC)
#18

Joined: 26/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 260

Thanks: 15 times
Was thanked: 209 time(s) in 118 post(s)
King Lodos;49360 wrote:

I take Efficient Markets as my base case .. The argument being that the cap-weighted distribution of stocks/regions is the best risk-adjusted return possible, from the collective intelligence of the market .. i.e. when you make more from Micro-caps, Private Equity, Emerging Mkts, etc. it's simply because you're taking more risk, and accepting a wider distribution of possible outcomes.


The Efficient Markets hypothesis often seems to be misunderstood. People usually seem to think it means that shares are always correctly priced - but I don't think that's even meaningful, and certainly isn't what the EMH is about. It actually asks the much narrower question of how quickly share prices respond to news - e.g. if a company announces a profit warning, can you gain by selling after you see the news, to which the answer is generally "no", although clearly the response must take some finite time.

What you actually seem to be talking about is the Capital Asset Pricing Model, but that also gets misunderstood as an argument for index trackers. What the CAPM does is take *as an assumption* the idea that there is no reason to choose one share over another except as regards risk, defined as the standard deviation of returns, i.e. it assumes that the expected return from any share is a constant amount per unit risk, plus some variation which by hypothesis is not predictable, but which may be correlated to some extent between shares. That has quite a bit of support even if it isn't necessarily the whole truth, and it leads to the idea that you should diversify as much as reasonably possible because that removes the non-correlated part of the risk.

The second part of the argument is that *if* all investors believed that then they would all hold the same portfolio since there would be no reason to prefer one share over another, and they would just adjust their overall risk by holding or borrowing cash. If everyone holds the same portfolio it would have to be the market portfolio by definition. However as things stand that clearly isn't true, all investors do not hold the market portfolio and if you dig a bit it isn't even clear what that means e.g. as regards worldwide markets or whether you consider free-floats or other assets like property,
3 users thanked Stephen B. for this post.
Sara G on 29/07/2017(UTC), Mr Helpful on 30/07/2017(UTC), MoMoney on 22/08/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 29 July 2017 18:46:03(UTC)
#19

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,763

Thanks: 604 times
Was thanked: 4224 time(s) in 1639 post(s)
Stephen B.;49364 wrote:
The Efficient Markets hypothesis often seems to be misunderstood. People usually seem to think it means that shares are always correctly priced - but I don't think that's even meaningful, and certainly isn't what the EMH is about. It actually asks the much narrower question of how quickly share prices respond to news - e.g. if a company announces a profit warning, can you gain by selling after you see the news, to which the answer is generally "no", although clearly the response must take some finite time.

What you actually seem to be talking about is the Capital Asset Pricing Model, but that also gets misunderstood as an argument for index trackers. What the CAPM does is take *as an assumption* the idea that there is no reason to choose one share over another except as regards risk, defined as the standard deviation of returns, i.e. it assumes that the expected return from any share is a constant amount per unit risk, plus some variation which by hypothesis is not predictable, but which may be correlated to some extent between shares. That has quite a bit of support even if it isn't necessarily the whole truth, and it leads to the idea that you should diversify as much as reasonably possible because that removes the non-correlated part of the risk.

The second part of the argument is that *if* all investors believed that then they would all hold the same portfolio since there would be no reason to prefer one share over another, and they would just adjust their overall risk by holding or borrowing cash. If everyone holds the same portfolio it would have to be the market portfolio by definition. However as things stand that clearly isn't true, all investors do not hold the market portfolio and if you dig a bit it isn't even clear what that means e.g. as regards worldwide markets or whether you consider free-floats or other assets like property,


I think in this case slightly misunderstood by you.

EMH is the idea that asset prices essentially reflect all information the market has available, while CAPM is a model those working in finance use to make decisions based on that premise.

Strictly speaking it's the Global Market Portfolio (all investable financial risk assets) .. How you construct that today is debatable, but things like property and private equity are still priced to deliver the same return (sans fees) per unit of risk as stocks and bonds, so it's unlikely to make a difference.

The first reason everyone doesn't hold the same portfolio is because everyone has different aims, and everyone doesn't have access to unlimited, cost-free leverage .. That's also why the CAPM model can't be 100% correct .. But it's a much better premise than any alternative I know.

You'll notice, Bogleheads these days (the fastest growing strategy in the world) simply hold a lot of stocks when they're young; and more bonds as they get older – all cap-weighted .. So we're getting a lot closer to everyone holding the same portfolio.

The second reason we can't, however, is in an old paper called The Impossibility of Informationality Efficient Markets .. If everyone did hold the same portfolio, markets would stop being efficient, because there wouldn't be people pricing in enough information .. You need a margin of inefficiency to achieve efficiency – and it needs to be competitively traded .. The advantage of hedge funds is they can lever that inefficiency up to as much as they want.
Tony Peterson
Posted: 29 July 2017 18:46:17(UTC)
#26

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,175

Thanks: 718 times
Was thanked: 1444 time(s) in 597 post(s)
Stephen

I think you might be missing a trick or two here. I'm rather fond of physics too, having once taken it to degree level under the aegis of an aged professor (Burbridge) who had in his youth in the 19th century been the student lab partner of a young Ernest Rutherford, prior to Rutherford's departure to do some interesting experiments in Manchester.

I have found quantum physics to be a wonderful tool in investing. The concept of forbidden energy levels in particular.
I maintain our value of any stock we hold in a narrow band, trim if it goes northwards and boost if it goes southwards.

Works like magic. Like radioactive decay. Chaotic. But probabilistically predictable.
2 users thanked Tony Peterson for this post.
Mr Helpful on 30/07/2017(UTC), The Spanish Inquisition on 02/11/2017(UTC)
Tony Peterson
Posted: 30 July 2017 09:17:21(UTC)
#27

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,175

Thanks: 718 times
Was thanked: 1444 time(s) in 597 post(s)
Tyrion

I think your idea of acquiring direct holdings in the top ten equities has merit, but one major disadvantage. If the funds are doing well, half or more of those holdings will be in the positive part of their cycles.

So, if I was starting at present I would avoid adding to those holdings which are near their peaks, but cheerfully add to those near their lows.

I have pointed out before one extra hidden charge in holding a variety of fund investments. Fund A decides to reduce its BT stake at the same time as Fund B decides to add. If you are in both funds you are effectively paying commission twice over to sell shares to yourself.

With prices where they are this weekend I would be inclined to take profits from the miners BLT and Rio Tinto, and add to holdings in Sainsburys, M&S, UU, GSK and AZN. Plenty of bargains on offer there.



7 users thanked Tony Peterson for this post.
gillyann on 30/07/2017(UTC), Jeff Liddiard on 30/07/2017(UTC), Tyrion Lannister on 30/07/2017(UTC), Sara G on 30/07/2017(UTC), antigricer on 30/07/2017(UTC), Vince. on 30/07/2017(UTC), MoMoney on 22/08/2017(UTC)
AJW
Posted: 01 August 2017 11:31:54(UTC)
#28

Joined: 15/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 63

Thanks: 70 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 27 post(s)
I'd say if you're inexperienced and in early stages of investment, stick with a few good funds and a sensible asset allocation. Work up from there.

"It's easy when you know how"
1 user thanked AJW for this post.
MrC on 01/08/2017(UTC)
MrC
Posted: 01 November 2017 01:07:56(UTC)
#29

Joined: 25/07/2017(UTC)
Posts: 5

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Just thought I'd update this thread with what I ended up doing.

I took on board a lot of advice and want to thank everyone who replied, it made me look at things slightly differently and I have now got a short and medium term plan with what I am doing/planing to do

Short term I have reduced the number of funds invested in and chosen a couple of new ones from my list. So therefore I now have:

- L&G Global Health & Pharmaceuticals
- Marlborough MicroCap
- GAM Star Credit Oppurtunities
- SMT

All paying a monthly amount in, with the plan to probably switch the Global Health and Pharmaceuticals to something a bit less specialist in the future.

I learnt a lesson following getting scared and removing L&G Global Technology, it has now shot up!

Medium term I plan to move some into stocks themselves; but only when I can devote the time and energy into doing some proper analysis and learning a lot more about technical trading.

Cheers

3 users thanked MrC for this post.
King Lodos on 01/11/2017(UTC), Micawber on 01/11/2017(UTC), The Spanish Inquisition on 02/11/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 01 November 2017 01:35:58(UTC)
#30

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,763

Thanks: 604 times
Was thanked: 4224 time(s) in 1639 post(s)
Looks like a fine selection .. I'd just warn there won't be much diversification there in the event of something bigger than the usual wobble .. If you're still investing regularly, that shouldn't be a problem – I'd just simulate regularly what a 60% drop across your investments would look like, and work out whether that means you'd want to hold more cash, or hold some more defensive funds, like Ruffer Total Return.

I started investing with the belief I'd just see a market crash as an opportunity – but once my portfolio got over a certain size (and monthly contributions became relatively small) I became a lot more focused on capital preservation.

GAM Star is one of my favourite holdings, but while it looks defensive, it's actually climbed a lot with the stock market – and is likely fairly correlated .. And yeah, if the Tech sector wobble was recently, that was mostly just the pound recovering, then slipping again .. That got me going to cash a bit and selling a few US holdings.

Tyrion Lannister
Posted: 01 November 2017 01:55:35(UTC)
#31

Joined: 03/03/2017(UTC)
Posts: 299

Thanks: 175 times
Was thanked: 223 time(s) in 132 post(s)
King Lodos;52696 wrote:
Looks like a fine selection .. I'd just warn there won't be much diversification there in the event of something bigger than the usual wobble .. If you're still investing regularly, that shouldn't be a problem – I'd just simulate regularly what a 60% drop across your investments would look like, and work out whether that means you'd want to hold more cash, or hold some more defensive funds, like Ruffer Total Return.

I started investing with the belief I'd just see a market crash as an opportunity – but once my portfolio got over a certain size (and monthly contributions became relatively small) I became a lot more focused on capital preservation.

GAM Star is one of my favourite holdings, but while it looks defensive, it's actually climbed a lot with the stock market – and is likely fairly correlated .. And yeah, if the Tech sector wobble was recently, that was mostly just the pound recovering, then slipping again .. That got me going to cash a bit and selling a few US holdings.



Do you believe that holding defensive funds would give any meaningful protection in the event of a crash?

Corporate bonds, for example, are at least as expensive as shares just now and I’m also thinking of the fall in most total return funds a couple of years ago during a relatively benign market dip.

As you suggest, the only defensive “investment” in today’s climate is cash (and possibly gold).

Edit: While you’re selling some US stock, I’m still drip feeding into the L&G US index trust, I’m not convinced the market is quite exhausted even now, mainly because no one has any where else to put their cash if they want any sort of return. We are in unknown territory so I’m trying to keep all options open as much as possible, which includes holding 25% cash.
King Lodos
Posted: 01 November 2017 03:22:33(UTC)
#32

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,763

Thanks: 604 times
Was thanked: 4224 time(s) in 1639 post(s)
Tyrion Lannister;52697 wrote:
Do you believe that holding defensive funds would give any meaningful protection in the event of a crash?

Corporate bonds, for example, are at least as expensive as shares just now and I’m also thinking of the fall in most total return funds a couple of years ago during a relatively benign market dip.

As you suggest, the only defensive “investment” in today’s climate is cash (and possibly gold).

Edit: While you’re selling some US stock, I’m still drip feeding into the L&G US index trust, I’m not convinced the market is quite exhausted even now, mainly because no one has any where else to put their cash if they want any sort of return. We are in unknown territory so I’m trying to keep all options open as much as possible, which includes holding 25% cash.


It always depends what kind of crash we get .. In the 70s, Corporate and High Yield bonds did a pretty good of preserving capital when stocks crashed .. And Corporates did okay again in the financial crisis.

Protection, potentially .. But the academic way of looking at it (Modern Portfolio Theory) would tend to be that Stocks are still likely to do better over a 10 year period, so you'd avoid Corporates and High Yield, and instead go for higher returns, and negatively correlated assets (Gov. Bonds, TIPS, Gold) .. I like corporates because they smooth out volatility, and because I don't hold anything that's going down.

The other uncorrelated asset is 'alpha' .. So things like Long/Short .. It depends whether you can do better with them than you can cash .. A few years ago, everyone was piling into GARS and Aviva Multi-strategy, and they've fallen off .. Some of the best performers did horribly .. I've held a small amount in Henderson UK Absolute Return for years, and I'll keep holding while it's better than cash .. Old Mutual Global Absolute Return is well regarded .. My only advice with them is don't hold on – if cash is doing better, just start selling.


Well I think the rally will keep going, but I don't let those thoughts influence my investing .. My process is that I sell things that are falling behind.

So I've been moving out of the US (I've still got some in VT De Lisle American and Tech index) and gone into more UK Micro-Caps (TB Amati UK Smaller Cos)



1 user thanked King Lodos for this post.
Tyrion Lannister on 01/11/2017(UTC)
Tyrion Lannister
Posted: 05 November 2017 21:18:36(UTC)
#33

Joined: 03/03/2017(UTC)
Posts: 299

Thanks: 175 times
Was thanked: 223 time(s) in 132 post(s)
MrC;49256 wrote:
Hi All

Currently my portfolio is split as follows:

Schroder Income Maximiser 3%
Fidelity Index US 3%
M&G Global Income 3%
GAM Star Credit Oppurtunities 3%
L&G Global Health & Pharmaceuticals 17% (this has a monthly payment going in)
Cash (Santander 123, Short term high interest current accounts) 57%
ISA - To invest 14%

I recently moved 12% out of investments (L&G Global Technology and L&G UK 100) into Cash but am considering using some of that to re-invest; I got a very good return on the Global Technology over 2 years and I fear for the time being the FTSE has peaked so decided to cash in my gains and use that to benefit my family

I am therefore now looking to invest the remaining cash in the ISA into some new funds (with the exception of L&G, I use HL as a platform). Reading through this forum, I am thinking to invest in the following with the 14% split equally and a monthly contribution to each. These would all be income, as I quite like the thought of getting some regular income in the future – it will be reinvested in the short term

Vanguard Life Strategy 80% Equity
M&G Global Income (in addition to what I already have)
Lindsell Train Global Equity
Marlborough MiroCap

I am not sure if there is too much overlap on the existing portfolio, or if the spread is to much – I know the LandG global health is disproportionate but I want to not move out of the L&G wrapper

Any advice greatly appreciated. I also am looking at:

RIT Capital Partners but given the premium currently, wondered if it is a risky one?

Cheers


LT global Equity and Marlborough microcap growth are both excellent funds and they compliment each other very well.

I’m not sure about M&G global dividend though, I’d have a look at Artemis Global Income or Newton Global Income instead.

At your time in life though, have a think about why you want to invest in income funds, they don’t usually offer the best total return which is surely what you’re really after?

Also, do have a closer look at Investment Trusts, Scottish Mortgage (SMT) and F&C Global Smaller Companies (FCS) are another large/small cap pair you might want to consider. FCS is really mid cap rather than small so it would also fit alongside Marlborough Micro cap Growth, SMT is primarily tech stocks so that fits well with LT Global Equity which is primarily consumer stocks, the 4 would make a very nice quartet imo.

Tim D
Posted: 06 November 2017 15:22:57(UTC)
#34

Joined: 07/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 413

Thanks: 1490 times
Was thanked: 631 time(s) in 273 post(s)
Tyrion Lannister;52904 wrote:

I’m not sure about M&G global dividend though, I’d have a look at Artemis Global Income or Newton Global Income instead.


Reviewed some long-held (5-10 years) income holdings a month or two ago and M&G Global Dividend got the chop on the grounds it had underperformed VHYL (Vanguard's passive global equity income ETF). Its regional asset allocation wasn't a million miles away from VHYL so I just rolled all the M&G holding into that. I also hold the Newton Global Income fund and I hung onto that one although I forget the details of why (presumably it wasn't underperforming VHYL).
john brace
Posted: 06 November 2017 18:35:02(UTC)
#35

Joined: 03/02/2012(UTC)
Posts: 59

Thanks: 176 times
Was thanked: 37 time(s) in 20 post(s)
I would like to analyse my portfolio but of course HL will only analyse oics. Have entered portfolio into Trustnet, but still can't find what percentage bonds, fixed int. etc. Can anyone tell me where I can do this please?
Tim D
Posted: 06 November 2017 21:35:45(UTC)
#36

Joined: 07/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 413

Thanks: 1490 times
Was thanked: 631 time(s) in 273 post(s)
john brace;52925 wrote:
I would like to analyse my portfolio but of course HL will only analyse oics. Have entered portfolio into Trustnet, but still can't find what percentage bonds, fixed int. etc. Can anyone tell me where I can do this please?


Have used Morningstar's "Portfolio X-Ray" tool a few times in the past. Think it's normally a premium pay-for feature with subscriptions but you can get a free trial for a week or two.

Do you really have such a mix of multi-asset holdings that it's not obvious what the % in fixed-interest is though? "XRay" tools are more for getting a sense of overall region/sector/credit-quality exposure.
MrC
Posted: 10 January 2018 14:04:19(UTC)
#37

Joined: 25/07/2017(UTC)
Posts: 5

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 2 post(s)
All,

Just thought I'd update on where I am with this. I had a chance to sit down and do some reading/analysis over the Christmas period, including a lot more historical reading on here. There are some great discussions and it has made me understand that in the past I have had overlap on some of the funds I held.

Therefore, I decided that I would look to spread which areas my portfolio covers, and hence to begin with looked at what sectors I invested in. Having added PCT and JEO in the past couple of months I now have as follows:

IA UK Equity Income - Schroder Income Maximiser
IA UK Smaller Companies - Marlborough UK Micro Cap
IA Sterling Strategic Bond - GAM Star
IA Global - L&G Global Health
IA Technology & Telecommunications - PCT
IT Global - SMT
IT Europe - JEO

I would like to add a Japanese/Asia element but having read suggestions that maybe 7 is a max to the number I should hold, I haven't bought it. The plan is to - through regular investments - try and balance the amount of money invested in each one, with a small pot available such that if anything dips, I can put some additional money in.

Cheers
Mickey
Posted: 10 January 2018 14:38:18(UTC)
#44

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 554

Thanks: 1499 times
Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 277 post(s)
Some links below on the idea of 7 funds max, I think the gist is that 7 is just the point where risk vs reward is optimal but holding more is okay, it just doesn't necessarily lower your risk though that depends of course on what you hold.

I like to hold few funds but the 'thisismoney' article makes a point for holding around 15. John Baron holds 22 or so in his Summer and Autumn portfolios with less than 10% as a max holding and the lower end being 2.5%.

http://citywire.co.uk/money/how-many-funds-is-too-many/a721260

http://www.morningstar.in/posts/9288/how-many-funds-should-you-own.aspx

http://news.morningstar.com/classroom2/course.asp?docId=4438&page=4

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/diyinvesting/article-2449028/How-funds-hold-investment-portfolio.html
4 users thanked Mickey for this post.
Slacker on 10/01/2018(UTC), Jim S on 10/01/2018(UTC), dlp6666 on 10/01/2018(UTC), Tyrion Lannister on 11/01/2018(UTC)
Stephen B.
Posted: 10 January 2018 14:39:21(UTC)
#45

Joined: 26/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 260

Thanks: 15 times
Was thanked: 209 time(s) in 118 post(s)
There's no particular reason to limit to 7 or any other number, it's just a practical matter of how much admin you're prepared to do, plus the fact that there's no point having several funds that largely duplicate their holdings. In your case it does look as though emerging markets are an obvious gap. Japan is less clear, in the end it's just a single country so quite a specialised investment, but it is quite a large economy and doesn't make a good fit with broader funds so generally if you want Japanese exposure at all you need a Japan-specific fund. Conversely "emerging markets" is a rather broad area these days - personally I've ended up splitting it explicitly into Asia, Latin America, Emerging Europe and Frontier, but obviously that increases the number of funds.
3 users thanked Stephen B. for this post.
Mickey on 10/01/2018(UTC), Jim S on 10/01/2018(UTC), Tyrion Lannister on 11/01/2018(UTC)
Jim S
Posted: 10 January 2018 15:12:54(UTC)
#46

Joined: 08/12/2016(UTC)
Posts: 237

Thanks: 396 times
Was thanked: 294 time(s) in 147 post(s)
For Japan/Asia, if you don't want many more funds, I believe PHI includes some Japanese stocks, its still on 8% discount, well regarded and might be a good choice.

Or if you wanted to add several (Japan + China + general EM maybe), then it becomes more complicated.
For Japan there are several good Baillie Gifford oeic & ITs you could look at. I would avoid buying an IT on big premium at though, so OEIC might be safer. Or AJG might be worth a look.
For China, JP Morgan China or FCSS have good track records.
For EM, maybe Hermes OEIC or FEET (which I suspect will continue to improve).



3 PagesPrevious page123Next page
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets