Are you doing better than MINUS 4.1% ?

From: Alan Hill


I read an interesting article in The Herald this morning by Annette Sampson titled 'Super funds get wake-up call'.

In light of the fact that since July 1, employers have been required to increase their contributions to super from 8 to 9 per cent; I thought it might be interesting to see what sort of returns certain 'professional' investor groups have achieved.

Let me quote a section:

"With around half the big super fund managers now having reported their financial year returns, Intech Financial Services confirmed this week that the median super fund is looking at a LOSS of 4.1 per cent. (Intech says the 'typical' fund has around 70 per cent of its money in 'growth' assets such as shares and property and around 23 per cent of its money in international shares. With international shares down around 20 per cent in $A terms and Australian shares down by around 4.7 per cent, it was a rare fund that managed to provide a positive return to its members.)

Now admittedly, various asset classes will have good and bad years but I think this type of article reinforces why many of us are here. We personally have to take responsibility for our own future financial well-being!

How many of the Forum did better than MINUS 4.1% last year? Hmmmm......I think there were probably many if not most.

Congratulations guys! If you did do better than the above, obviously much of the effort, education and enthusiasm is working for you. Your achieving better returns than the large professional fund managers!

Let's see by how much we can whip those guys by this financial year shall we? :)



:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1
From: Anonymous


Hmmm. Just to play devil's advocate and look at the other side of the coin for a minute....

I love direct investing in property, I really do. But ALL growth assets will experience volatility in their life time. And in the past year, share markets all over the world have really taken a hammering. So that's accounted for the poor yearly performance of many super funds.

I reckon the best way to wealth is to hedge your bets and diversify...property, direct shares, and yes, even managed funds, which super funds really are. Managed funds DO provide a great way to diversify across investment sectors, as well as different companies/properties within those sectors. This then reduces the overall risk of one's portfolio, which is never a bad thing.

Sorry for ranting. I think I'll keep myself anonymous for fear of retribution from over-zealous forumites :)

Anon
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1
From: Rolf Latham


Hi Anon

What exactly is volatility ?

Is this why a Margin Loan Provider will lend 70 % of a blue chip restricted portfolio, while > 97 % is possible against property from the same lender ?

All Asset classes perform great over time. The advantage that propery has over shares is that you tend not to get the same hormone induced like mood swings with property as you can with shares.

ta

Rolf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1
From: Alan Hill


Hi Anon.

I would generally agree with you that having a spread of asset classes is a good idea and at least the reason given by the Funds for such poor returns is because of a general fall in Share prices. (Although I know comparatively little about the sharemarket, I do find shares fascinating by the way.... :) )

However, I do NOT believe returns of MINUS 4% are acceptable by large professional fund managers who have been entrusted with our money. This is not an issue about shares or property but rather the efficient management of investments.

It just seems to be considered perfectly acceptable that these funds can just shrug their shoulders, say that we can expect negative returns one in every seven years and that it wasn't their fault anyway.....it was the sharemarket's fault. Hogwash!

These funds are not necessarily 'share funds' anyway, but rather they are managers of whatever investments give consistent, strong profits. This should involve moving in and out of asset classes to reduce risk and to obviously work smarter within the asset classes they are managing.

Let's look at their main cop-out, that it was all the sharemarket's fault......

Some funds, did comparatively well in the sharemarket this year. As stated in Sundays Herald, for example, REST outperformed the average fund by 8% thanks in part to a small company investment manager David Paradice, who earned a 35% return on the 4% of REST assets placed with his company. Paradice has paid a 90% total return since REST first invested in March 2000.
REST's other local fund manager was Perpetual's Industrial Share Fund, which was up 5% for the year, while the benchmark was down 5.6%.
REST moved to limit the damage from its investments in falling international sharemarkets and increased money in unlisted property trusts. Returns from property suddenly looked attractive: the fund bought major buildings in Melbourne and Sydney. They also hedged their international shares into Australian dollars so as to not suffer any loss in the strengthening of the Australian dollar.

Clearly there were funds out there that did do reasonably well......and some did it by being active even in a falling sharemarket.

Personally I think these funds really need to lift their game......


:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1.1
From: Tibor Bode


Hi Anon,

I would be interested what the majority really financially successful people have in their portfolios. On the various materials I have came across until today, it is heavily stressed only 2 items
1) businesses (produce cash-flow)
2) property (park cash and hide it from tax)

I am sure there are people who make good living out of shares but not so sure that even as a successful trader you can get close to people who can start-up a business then sell it to other people via IPO or trade sale.

Another point I'd like to mention here, are Dolf de Roos comments on property. He personally believes that property is better than any other form of investments (not saying that it is right or wrong) on the following basis

a)When you buy 100K worth shares / managed funds / etc, what it is worth? 100K, of course. What about 100K property? It could be less (bought badly) could be considerably more (bought well).

b)The leverage bit was already mentioned by Rolf, but it can also make a big difference.

c)What control do yo have over your shares / MFs, etc performance. Nil, zilch, etc. You are at the directors / managers mercy (who charge a sometimes not so modest fee frequently irrespective of THEIR performance)
In property you have much more control over the performance of your portfolio.

d) What value can you add to your shares / managed funds / ect? Nil, zilch, etc. In a property you have to agree that you can add to the value, several cases quite considerable value.

Above and also my 10 plus years personal experiences with equities, IPOs and several managed funds (and the real returns on them) made me think about the diversity mantra (yes I used to say it as well) and its ultimate wisdom.

Yes, it is a strategy which good for the average person and and might take a long time to help them to reach their goals.

My only question is do you want to be only average or maybe interested to do it better?

It is not an overzealous opinion, but just another point of view based on personal experiences and lots of reading and listening.

Tibor
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1.1.1
From: Andrew D


I remember reading Warren Buffet( a share guru) who said that diversification is a falsehood..... He said to become a specialist in one or two areas. For him that was companies in the sharemarket ...for you that may be property....whatever you do give it 110% and stick to it....by the way I have also been through the share sector for the last four years....good time and bad times but see better stability and control in property.
Enjoy
AD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1.1.1.1
From: Sim' Hampel


On 7/8/02 9:35:00 AM, Andrew Deering wrote:
> Warren Buffet (a share guru)

No, Warren Buffet was a smorgasbord guru.
Warren Buffett is the share guru ;-)

* Sim laughs hysterically at his own joke

sim.gif
 
Last edited:
Reply: 1.1.2
From: Geoff Whitfield


I'm not quite sure about the mood swings.

I've had a DHA property near Canberra (Jerrabomberrra) for 5 years. It grew 5% in the first 4 years. And now 30% in one year.

OK, there is a supermarket there where there wasn't before.

But Queanbeyan, with a similar distance from Canberra and no supermarket to blame, seems to have gone up nearly as much.

I'm very glad of the growth- but it doesn't appear logical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1.1.1.1.1
From: Geoff Whitfield


Sim',

Speaking Buffetts vs buffets-Just make sure somebody doesn't make a typo of "Hampel" and make it a "Hamper" ;-)

Geoff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.2.1
From: Tibor Bode


On 7/8/02 9:05:00 PM, Geoff Whitfield wrote:

>
>I'm very glad of the growth-
>but it doesn't appear logical.


Geoff,

Sorry, but I just can't resist the temptation. Canberra is full of pollies, so why do you expect logic?


Tibor
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.2.1.1
From: Mark Laszczuk


In regards to sharemarket returns. I quickly glossed over a few paragraphs in an article in Asset magazine today about a guy who sued his former stockbroker. The little I read suggested the guy's family gave the broking firm around 250K to invest. Somehow they ended up with a total of return of around 560K but wait for it... a debt of 850K. Don't know how that got there. Ouch! On top of that, they still expected their fee of 60K. Can you believe that? They leave the family with a debt of nearly 300K and still expect to get paid. The guy won the case, by the way.

Mark
'no hat, some cattle'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.2.1.1.1
From: Tony Dixon


Mark, the case you are referring to may have been the one featured in "Australian Story" last night. They didn't say exactly who the defendant was, but I assume it was Hartley Poynton.
The HP case was where the investor's funds were whittled away by "churning" - excessive buying and selling to generate fees.

The TV program featuring the plaintiff's legal team was a good yarn, a bit of a love story, a bit of "The Castle".

cheers, Tony
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.2.1.1.1.1
From: Mark Laszczuk


Tony,
Could be, but I don't think so. This fella was Indian. Hey, maybe his name was Hartley, but it doesn't sound familiar. I'll look tomorrow if I remember.

Mark
'no hat, some cattle'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1
From: Terry W


That sounds like the one. An Indian guy and HP.

Terry
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1.1.1.1.2
From: Yuch .


Sim,

Warren Buffet is really a businessman, he buys businesses! ;)

Regards
yuchun
~ The secret to success is to start from scratch and keep on scratching. ~
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top