The Investing Year Ahead

[khlongtoey]

nope that is some ad for so called private equity , can find a million posts like this .

 

often I hear things like this, "vanguard" is doing this or doing that, which is meaningless ; as all they do is create funds, they aren't the owners doing things

[Mike Lister]

2 minutes ago, khlongtoey said:

nope that is some ad for so called private equity , can find a million posts like this .

 

often I hear things like this, "vanguard" is doing this or doing that, which is meaningless ; as all they do is create funds, they aren't the owners doing things

If you know, why even ask!

[jas007]

For a foreigner who can’t get a mortgage in Thailand and will have to pay cash, buying a condo might not be such a smart move. The opportunity cost is too high.

Even if the price seems reasonable, without the benefit of a mortgage, you are not using other people’s money, you’re using your money.  
 

If you assume the condo won’t appreciate at all, then it sounds like a losing proposition.  And even if it appreciates, it probably won’t appreciate that much. So it’s still not that great of an investment. You can probably find hundreds of better options.  Stocks, bonds, commodities.

 

And don’t forget the currency risk.  You buy the condo with currency from your home country, and the next thing you know you have an asset priced in Thai baht.  Will the baht rise or fall?  
 

Perhaps you have so much money that buying a condo would be no big deal. In that case, if it makes you happy, then why not? 
 

I’ve decided just to rent.  I don’t have any money tied up and I can always move.  And the rent is very reasonable.  So much so that I sort of feel sorry for the Thai owner. She’s getting an income, though, so she’s happy.

 

I sometimes wonder who owns all the condos in my building. I’ve seen my next door neighbor exactly two times in two years. I’ve never seen the person in the condo next to that.  There was a Korean couple that lived at the other end of the floor, but they moved, so right now I think I’m the only occupant of my floor. Anyway, someone must own all the other condos. Rich Thai people? Whoever they are, they can afford to own condos that are never used.

[Mike Lister]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

For a foreigner who can’t get a mortgage in Thailand and will have to pay cash, buying a condo might not be such a smart move. The opportunity cost is too high.

Even if the price seems reasonable, without the benefit of a mortgage, you are not using other people’s money, you’re using your money.  
 

If you assume the condo won’t appreciate at all, then it sounds like a losing proposition.  And even if it appreciates, it probably won’t appreciate that much. So it’s still not that great of an investment. You can probably find hundreds of better options.  Stocks, bonds, commodities.

 

And don’t forget the currency risk.  You buy the condo with currency from your home country, and the next thing you know you have an asset priced in Thai baht.  Will the baht rise or fall?  
 

Perhaps you have so much money that buying a condo would be no big deal. In that case, if it makes you happy, then why not? 
 

I’ve decided just to rent.  I don’t have any money tied up and I can always move.  And the rent is very reasonable.  So much so that I sort of feel sorry for the Thai owner. She’s getting an income, though, so she’s happy.

 

I sometimes wonder who owns all the condos in my building. I’ve seen my next door neighbor exactly two times in two years. I’ve never seen the person in the condo next to that.  There was a Korean couple that lived at the other end of the floor, but they moved, so right now I think I’m the only occupant of my floor. Anyway, someone must own all the other condos. Rich Thai people? Whoever they are, they can afford to own condos that are never used.

I paid 6.3 mill for mine in 2004, at a time when GBP/THB was 70, I sold five years later when it was 52, in the meantime I lived rent free plus I made 12% on the purchase price. Who owns all those condo's? SMart people who don't pay rent, that's who.

[khlongtoey]

carry on  then 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-26/blackrock-muscles-into-private-assets-market-for-wealth-clients

 

good luck beating the markets

[jas007]

On 6/30/2024 at 9:15 PM, Mike Lister said:

I paid 6.3 mill for mine in 2004, at a time when GBP/THB was 70, I sold five years later when it was 52, in the meantime I lived rent free plus I made 12% on the purchase price. Who owns all those condo's? SMart people who don't pay rent, that's who.

Sure, sometimes the currency moves can be substantial. But that can be a crapshoot, right?  People got some great deals back in the late 90s during the Asian financial crisis. Not only was the Thai economy not doing so well, the Thai baht had dropped significantly. Some sellers were motivated .  In retrospect, many foreign buyers did well.  But it can also work the other way.  
 

My only point is that buying a condo isn’t for everyone.  How old are they?  Do they have a significant other? Do they have kids who might not want to fool around trying to sell a condo in Thailand?  What other assets do they have? What’s their income?  Will they live there full time? Are they absolutely sure about the location? 
 

As for paying rent in Thailand? To me, it seems so low that it almost doesn’t matter.  I’ll gladly pay it every month.  I don’t pay property taxes, I don’t pay HOA fees, and I don’t pay for insurance. I guess that’s why Thailand is so popular as a retirement destination.
 

I’m not sure where you’re from, but the property market in the States has been crazy.  Not only for buyers, but rents have gone sky high as well.  And don’t forget property taxes, homeowners insurance, regular maintenance, utilities, and so on.  It all adds up.   And if you’re not careful, you’ll be stuck in a money pit.  For young people with a long time horizon, buying may well be the smart choice if they can get a fixed rate mortgage at a good rate. 
 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Sure, sometimes the currency moves can be substantial. But that can be a crapshoot, right?  People got some great deals back in the late 90s during the Asian financial crisis. Not only was the Thai economy not doing so well, the Thai baht had dropped significantly. Some sellers were motivated .  In retrospect, many foreign buyers did well.  But it can also work the other way.  
 

My only point is that buying a condo isn’t for everyone.  How old are they?  Do they have a significant other? Do they have kids who might not want to fool around trying to sell a condo in Thailand?  What other assets do they have? What’s their income?  Will they live there full time? Are they absolutely sure about the location? 
 

As for paying rent in Thailand? To me, it seems so low that it almost doesn’t matter.  I’ll gladly pay it every month.  I don’t pay property taxes, I don’t pay HOA fees, and I don’t pay for insurance. I guess that’s why Thailand is so popular as a retirement destination.
 

I’m not sure where you’re from, but the property market in the States has been crazy.  Not only for buyers, but rents have gone sky high as well.  And don’t forget property taxes, homeowners insurance, regular maintenance, utilities, and so on.  It all adds up.   And if you’re not careful, you’ll be stuck in a money pit.  For young people with a long time horizon, buying may well be the smart choice if they can get a fixed rate mortgage at a good rate. 
 

 

While I generally agree with you, anyone claiming that buying a condo is always a bat investment is just a fool. There are always good properties around. 

 

Just as anyone that claim renting is stupid is a fool. Rents are generally low here, and there is usually a nice selection. 

 

The best reason to buy a condo, is because you want to own a condo. 

[Mike Lister]

7 hours ago, jas007 said:

Sure, sometimes the currency moves can be substantial. But that can be a crapshoot, right?  People got some great deals back in the late 90s during the Asian financial crisis. Not only was the Thai economy not doing so well, the Thai baht had dropped significantly. Some sellers were motivated .  In retrospect, many foreign buyers did well.  But it can also work the other way.  
 

My only point is that buying a condo isn’t for everyone.  How old are they?  Do they have a significant other? Do they have kids who might not want to fool around trying to sell a condo in Thailand?  What other assets do they have? What’s their income?  Will they live there full time? Are they absolutely sure about the location? 
 

As for paying rent in Thailand? To me, it seems so low that it almost doesn’t matter.  I’ll gladly pay it every month.  I don’t pay property taxes, I don’t pay HOA fees, and I don’t pay for insurance. I guess that’s why Thailand is so popular as a retirement destination.
 

I’m not sure where you’re from, but the property market in the States has been crazy.  Not only for buyers, but rents have gone sky high as well.  And don’t forget property taxes, homeowners insurance, regular maintenance, utilities, and so on.  It all adds up.   And if you’re not careful, you’ll be stuck in a money pit.  For young people with a long time horizon, buying may well be the smart choice if they can get a fixed rate mortgage at a good rate. 
 

 

I've heard it said several times that currency moves isn't regarded as investing  but is more luck or a "crapshoot". My view is that many people talk about currency gains but do nothing to try and realise them. In my previous example I made a conscious decision to invest heavily in THB and part of the justification for that was the elimination of rent, which in itself provided a payback and de risk the currency investment decision. Combining the two elements, currency and rent/buy, into the same equation, it becomes a much easier and more attractive decision. USD/THB and GBP/THB was on a one way street (in my book) during the subject period, it was a no brainer, all you had to do was A) have liquid assets, B) have the courage to deploy them. 

 

[jas007]

Yellowtail, 

 

I agree. Everyone’s situation is different.  
 

I’m at the point in life where I don’t want to spend all my time trying to maximize my wealth.  Doing that really does take time.  I remember years ago, when I first “retired” at age 35.  At the time, my genius idea was to trade stocks, so I spent all day online, glued to some computer monitors.  Back then, online trading was in its infancy and all the free tools they have today weren’t available. Anyway, at the end of the year and after all that work, I was only up 38%.  The market had a good year that year, and in retrospect, I could have accomplished the same thing by buying an index fund and forgetting about it.  I could have been down at the beach, chilling out, instead of sitting inside watching a stock ticker.

 

So I’m now retired again, and as of a few years ago, I don’t really trade stocks.  Whatever I buy, I keep.  Year to date I’m up 33%. Not great, but ok.  I could be back to no gain by the end of the year, but so what?  If history is any guide, holding long term turns out ok 90% of the time.  
 

Back to real estate.  Foreigners in Thailand usually have to pay cash.  No mortgages.   So anyone buying really has to risk their own money.  In the USA, some states have what they call “non-recourse financing.”  Suppose a person in one of those states buys a property.  They can usually do that with only a small down payment.  The rest of the purchase price is “somebody else’s money.”  If the value of the property drops after the purchase but the buyer is forced to sell, there’s no deficiency judgment that can be obtained.  Typically, the bank just gets the house back. The buyer is off the hook. Buying property in one of those state can almost be a no brainer.  The only thing you can lose is your down payment and your credit rating.

 

Banks don’t want repossessed houses.  So they sell them.  People buying such houses from the bank can get a good deal. The bank will even lend them the money. During the crash in the 2008 period, one of my friends bought a nice house in AZ from the bank for about 40% of the prior sale price.  When he sold that house a few years later, the market had recovered and he made a nice profit.

[Mike Lister]

7 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Yellowtail, 

 

I agree. Everyone’s situation is different.  
 

I’m at the point in life where I don’t want to spend all my time trying to maximize my wealth.  Doing that really does take time.  I remember years ago, when I first “retired” at age 35.  At the time, my genius idea was to trade stocks, so I spent all day online, glued to some computer monitors.  Back then, online trading was in its infancy and all the free tools they have today weren’t available. Anyway, at the end of the year and after all that work, I was only up 38%.  The market had a good year that year, and in retrospect, I could have accomplished the same thing by buying an index fund and forgetting about it.  I could have been down at the beach, chilling out, instead of sitting inside watching a stock ticker.

 

So I’m now retired again, and as of a few years ago, I don’t really trade stocks.  Whatever I buy, I keep.  Year to date I’m up 33%. Not great, but ok.  I could be back to no gain by the end of the year, but so what?  If history is any guide, holding long term turns out ok 90% of the time.  
 

Back to real estate.  Foreigners in Thailand usually have to pay cash.  No mortgages.   So anyone buying really has to risk their own money.  In the USA, some states have what they call “non-recourse financing.”  Suppose a person in one of those states buys a property.  They can usually do that with only a small down payment.  The rest of the purchase price is “somebody else’s money.”  If the value of the property drops after the purchase but the buyer is forced to sell, there’s no deficiency judgment that can be obtained.  Typically, the bank just gets the house back. The buyer is off the hook. Buying property in one of those state can almost be a no brainer.  The only thing you can lose is your down payment and your credit rating.

 

Banks don’t want repossessed houses.  So they sell them.  People buying such houses from the bank can get a good deal. The bank will even lend them the money. During the crash in the 2008 period, one of my friends bought a nice house in AZ from the bank for about 40% of the prior sale price.  When he sold that house a few years later, the market had recovered and he made a nice profit.

 

Thai banks cannot sell repo's for less than their book value, their only strategy is to sit on them and write them down a little each year.

 

 

[Mike Lister]

I divide my portfolio into segments: 41% is allocated to core money earners; 25% to trackers; 18% to bonds and currently overweight in cash/mm at 16%.

 

The 34% that is cash and bonds is a drag on performance, my annual overall return is close to 15%, which whilst not brilliant, is quite OK for me at my age. In truth I'm still playing a global game, even though the only action is in US markets hence another reason for under performance. Once again though, this is about risk aversion and age so the approach is still OK. 

 

Another dimension is the lack of obvious or even tempting investments. We may be in a bull market but it sure doesn't feel like any I've been in before.

 

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

Yellowtail, 

 

I agree. Everyone’s situation is different.  
 

I’m at the point in life where I don’t want to spend all my time trying to maximize my wealth.  Doing that really does take time.  I remember years ago, when I first “retired” at age 35.  At the time, my genius idea was to trade stocks, so I spent all day online, glued to some computer monitors.  Back then, online trading was in its infancy and all the free tools they have today weren’t available. Anyway, at the end of the year and after all that work, I was only up 38%.  The market had a good year that year, and in retrospect, I could have accomplished the same thing by buying an index fund and forgetting about it.  I could have been down at the beach, chilling out, instead of sitting inside watching a stock ticker.

 

So I’m now retired again, and as of a few years ago, I don’t really trade stocks.  Whatever I buy, I keep.  Year to date I’m up 33%. Not great, but ok.  I could be back to no gain by the end of the year, but so what?  If history is any guide, holding long term turns out ok 90% of the time.  
 

Back to real estate.  Foreigners in Thailand usually have to pay cash.  No mortgages.   So anyone buying really has to risk their own money.  In the USA, some states have what they call “non-recourse financing.”  Suppose a person in one of those states buys a property.  They can usually do that with only a small down payment.  The rest of the purchase price is “somebody else’s money.”  If the value of the property drops after the purchase but the buyer is forced to sell, there’s no deficiency judgment that can be obtained.  Typically, the bank just gets the house back. The buyer is off the hook. Buying property in one of those state can almost be a no brainer.  The only thing you can lose is your down payment and your credit rating.

 

Banks don’t want repossessed houses.  So they sell them.  People buying such houses from the bank can get a good deal. The bank will even lend them the money. During the crash in the 2008 period, one of my friends bought a nice house in AZ from the bank for about 40% of the prior sale price.  When he sold that house a few years later, the market had recovered and he made a nice profit.

I'm not sure what the point of your response is. While real estate in Thailand basically has the same risks and rewards as buying real estate in the US, though the amount of risk and benefits can vary significantly. Yes, getting a loan in the US is easier, and financing has benefits, but those benefits are not free. When I was working I Thailand, I could have gotten a home loan. 

 

I do not think buying a condo or any real estate in Thailand is a good idea for anyone that would have to spend a significant portion of their net worth to do it, or for people that want to move every now and then, or that are happy renting. 

 

I do think buying a condo or any real estate in Thailand is a good idea for anyone that wants to, and that would not have to spend a significant portion of their net worth to do it, and that that are unhappy renting. 

 

For many people, buying a condo in Thailand makes about the same economic sense as buying a car. 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

I divide my portfolio into segments: 41% is allocated to core money earners; 25% to trackers; 18% to bonds and currently overweight in cash/mm at 16%.

 

The 34% that is cash and bonds is a drag on performance, my annual overall return is close to 15%, which whilst not brilliant, is quite OK for me at my age. In truth I'm still playing a global game, even though the only action is in US markets hence another reason for under performance. Once again though, this is about risk aversion and age so the approach is still OK. 

 

Another dimension is the lack of obvious or even tempting investments. We may be in a bull market but it sure doesn't feel like any I've been in before.

 

It always feels like the bottom is going to fall out, because at some point, the bottom always falls out.

 

 

[jas007]

Yellowtail,

 

I guess I was just thinking out loud.  While you may see the real estate market in Thailand and the U.S. as similar, in terms of risks and rewards, I was just pointing out that in the U.S., it’s sometimes the banks that take on much of the risk, not the buyer. With non-recourse financing, and 30 year fixed rate loans at absurdly low interest rates, it’s the banks that take on much of the risk.  The buyer can just walk away from the loan and mail the keys back to the bank.  Ever hear of ‘jingle mail”?  The house is then the bank’s problem.  Of course, the banks usually bundle and sell mortgage loans off to another party almost as soon as they are made, so the  cycle continues.  And when the real estate market crashes and the people holding the loans are in danger, they are bailed out by the government. That has happened before and it will happen again.  Right now, the commercial real estate market and many banks are in big trouble.
 

So at this point, it’s all a great game in the USA.  Anything to support the system. Whether it makes sense or not, they don’t care.

 

In Thailand, foreigners usually have to pay with cash.  Their own money.  They have a real estate market risk, and they have a currency risk. And if they lose, no one bails them out.

 

 

[jas007]

9 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

I divide my portfolio into segments: 41% is allocated to core money earners; 25% to trackers; 18% to bonds and currently overweight in cash/mm at 16%.

 

The 34% that is cash and bonds is a drag on performance, my annual overall return is close to 15%, which whilst not brilliant, is quite OK for me at my age. In truth I'm still playing a global game, even though the only action is in US markets hence another reason for under performance. Once again though, this is about risk aversion and age so the approach is still OK. 

 

Another dimension is the lack of obvious or even tempting investments. We may be in a bull market but it sure doesn't feel like any I've been in before.

 

 I think that part of the problem is that this market isn’t much of a real market these days. At least not like we had years ago.  So if we’re in a bull market and it doesn’t seem like it, that’s a possible reason why.
 

Once upon a time, money was more like real money. It meant something. The bond market meant something.  Company earnings and earnings growth and revenue and other such metrics all mattered.  The industrial base of the U.S. was still intact. At some point, gold was declared to be a “barbaric relic.”  Not long after the death of industrial capitalism, Wall Street gained more prominence.  Financialization, securitization, etc.  An emphasis on the short term. People today are chasing short term gains and profits at the expense of financial stability. It all seems just like a big casino.

 

Anyway, what’s the alternative?  

[Yellowtail]

27 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Yellowtail,

 

I guess I was just thinking out loud.  While you may see the real estate market in Thailand and the U.S. as similar, in terms of risks and rewards, I was just pointing out that in the U.S., it’s sometimes the banks that take on much of the risk, not the buyer. With non-recourse financing, and 30 year fixed rate loans at absurdly low interest rates, it’s the banks that take on much of the risk.  The buyer can just walk away from the loan and mail the keys back to the bank.  Ever hear of ‘jingle mail”?  The house is then the bank’s problem.  Of course, the banks usually bundle and sell mortgage loans off to another party almost as soon as they are made, so the  cycle continues.  And when the real estate market crashes and the people holding the loans are in danger, they are bailed out by the government. That has happened before and it will happen again.  Right now, the commercial real estate market and many banks are in big trouble.
 

So at this point, it’s all a great game in the USA.  Anything to support the system. Whether it makes sense or not, they don’t care.

 

In Thailand, foreigners usually have to pay with cash.  Their own money.  They have a real estate market risk, and they have a currency risk. And if they lose, no one bails them out.

 

 

I think what I said was the risks and rewards were the same, but amount of risk and benefits can vary tremendously. I think you are saying the same thing. 

 

Over 7% is an absurdly low interest rate for 30-year fixed rate mortgage with 20% down and a great credit rating? That's double what a ten-year CD is paying. 

 

If you have holdings in the US and Thailand, do they not work to hedge each other? 

 

 

 

[jas007]

I’m not sure who’s buying the US bonds, but everyone should know that the real inflation rate is not the lie they’re currently peddling.  At 7%, the interest rate is still a negative real interest rate, I think.  7% is better than 4%, where it was not too long ago. Of course, the cheap rates pushed home values into bubble territory. So when you buy a house today, you’re paying too much, but you’re getting a steal on the mortgage.  

[swissie]

WINE, WOMAN AND SONG as an alternative.

Looking back at my career as an investor. Since 1970. With 10% of my money I traded, the rest I invested Warren Buffet style. The latter turned out OK.,

Now at 72, "long-term" investing becomes questionable, as I don't have too much "long-term" left for myself.
The last time I found true "opportunities" was after the crash of 2007/08. Today "everything" is high, flirting with the upper end of the expectational envelope.
I have no children, my inheritance will go to some friends, old geezers like myself.

Therefore, the temptation to invest in WINE, WOMEN AND SONG as an alternative becomes stronger by the day.
----------------------------------------------------
PS: The term "expectational envelope" I have created. In the future, economists will use the term "swissies expectatorial envelope" frequently in TV shows. Needless to say, I secured copyrights already.

[swissie]

The magic of OPM (other peoples money). A good part of the world economy is based on it.

More specific: One can buy 10 tonnes of Copper with a downpayment of 10%. Subject to a "margin-call" or forced liquidation if the price drops 10%.

Not so in real-estate. If one keeps up with morgage payments, the Bank will not issue a "margin-call". = Market "downturns" can be outlasted as opposed to ones Copper position. As an example.

Therefore, no other segment of the investement universe has offered more secure ways to profit from "other peoples money" than the real-estate sector.

And: Globally, real estate has become more pricy, no matter where you look. Even in Eastern Timbuktu.

Thailand/Tropics: The climate does much harm to buildings. Due to construction standarts, buildings in Thailand age faster than European women. Something to be considered.

In the olden days our Grandfathers told us "Go West to make your fortune". They should have said: "Buy some real-estate somewhere and hold on to it" instead. Preferrably in Monaco, when it was a fishing village. Or Pattaya when it was a fishing village.

 

 

[Mike Lister]

12 hours ago, jas007 said:

 I think that part of the problem is that this market isn’t much of a real market these days. At least not like we had years ago.  So if we’re in a bull market and it doesn’t seem like it, that’s a possible reason why.
 

Once upon a time, money was more like real money. It meant something. The bond market meant something.  Company earnings and earnings growth and revenue and other such metrics all mattered.  The industrial base of the U.S. was still intact. At some point, gold was declared to be a “barbaric relic.”  Not long after the death of industrial capitalism, Wall Street gained more prominence.  Financialization, securitization, etc.  An emphasis on the short term. People today are chasing short term gains and profits at the expense of financial stability. It all seems just like a big casino.

 

Anyway, what’s the alternative?  

A good post that sums up my sentiment, "not a real market", "it doesn't seem like it, and "just like a big casino". Thank you for verbalising my thoughts.

[Mike Lister]

My 14% Japan paid off....happy days.

[Yellowtail]

It is interesting that at the end of the weeks that it became clear to most people that the President of the United States is non compos mentis that I'm up almost 3%. 

 

That is f'n scary, 

[Mike Lister]

Perhaps one of the eggspurts can help explain to me why the following fund has not attracted more investment? It's run by Paul Niven who manages the F&C UT and is immensely well qualified and experienced. It's an unconstrained 40-85% fund, well positioned across all the sectors, nicely spread geographically and not overweight anywhere and it's cheap at 0.29%. It's returned 24%, 1%, 10% and 19% over the past four years, why is it only subscribed to under 100 mill.? Answers on a postcard please, there'll be a grand prize drawing for the winning answer later.

 

https://lt.morningstar.com/1c6qh1t6k9/snapshotpdf/default.aspx?LanguageId=en-GB&Id=F000014AZY&ms-redirect-path=%2F1c6qh1t6k9default.aspx

 

https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/c/ct-universal-map-adventurous-accumulation

[Mike Lister]

JPM's quarterly asset allocation outlook, always a great read.

 

https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/portfolio-insights/asset-class-views/asset-allocation/

[CapraIbex]

2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

Perhaps one of the eggspurts can help explain to me why the following fund has not attracted more investment

Eggspurt here - Could it be (outrages) fees and ongoing costs?

[Mike Lister]

15 minutes ago, CapraIbex said:

Eggspurt here - Could it be (outrages) fees and ongoing costs?

Nonsense! 0.29% for a managed fund is very cheap. I take it you didn't look inside the fund or that you don't know.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Mike Lister said:

Nonsense! 0.29% for a managed fund is very cheap. I take it you didn't look inside the fund or that you don't know.

And the only thing that really matters is what you net. 

[CapraIbex]

24 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

Nonsense!

Eggspurt here - okay, if it's not the fees than the person who manages this fund is either an unknown entity or... or.... - if it's all nonsense then you probably know the answer to your question as you seem to be a staunch supporter of this fund manager and managed funds in general. Just a shame I won't be considered for your grand prize draw.

[Mike Lister]

4 minutes ago, CapraIbex said:

Eggspurt here - okay, if it's not the fees than the person who manages this fund is either an unknown entity or... or.... - if it's all nonsense then you probably know the answer to your question as you seem to be a staunch supporter of this fund manager and managed funds in general. Just a shame I won't be considered for your grand prize draw.

I already wrote that the FM is very highly regarded investment manager who heads the F&C UT. He's also head of asset allocation for Columbia Threadneedle.

 

I don't know the answer, that's why I posted here. You don't know the answer either and just want to guess.

 

Go troll somebody else!

[CapraIbex]

13 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

Go troll somebody else!

Just because you personally hold this particular fund manager in high regard and therefore consider my answer to your question as nonsense does not mean I am trolling. Your original question could be seen as fishing for a specific response.