You have been gifted 100k and have to invest this in the current smartshare offerings.
Your goal is for long term growth over 20+ years rather than a source of income. How would you divide up the 100k among the various smartshare funds?
Smartshares - you have 100k
Printable View
-
03-05-2016, 01:40 PMheisenbergSmartshares - you have 100k
-
03-05-2016, 01:49 PMLewylewylewy
Wow, this will take a lot longer than the annual stocktastic competition to see who wins...
-
03-05-2016, 01:53 PMheisenbergYou're right, but thankfully it's not a prospective exercise. Just seeing how you would divide the 100k with an aim towards long term growthQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewylewylewy
-
03-05-2016, 04:16 PMsimla
Investment choice for 20+ years? Now that is confident investing!
Since you are limiing to ETFs, I would personally weight to the property funds. Why? Because ETFs are broadly based, so there is not a lot of chance of dramatic upside like a 100-fold pay off, or so it would appear to me. Given that the pay off has a likely upside limit, I would therefore concentrate on likewise avoiding large loss by going for reliable performers, which property funds seem to have been over time. Many might say the indexes would do that too, but the indexes have been known to sit still for a long time, and even plunge a lot as per lately. That's just my view though.
Personally, though, I don't think I would expect to get away with a long term investment like that. Especially with world history looking so volatile at present. -
03-05-2016, 04:33 PMheisenberg
Might be worth stockpiling gold for the end of the financial system as we know it then! :)
-
03-05-2016, 04:37 PMsimla
Interesting article on Bloomberg last year. Suggested that gold is for people who think the legal system is going to break down, property for people who trust the legal system to survive!
-
03-05-2016, 05:40 PMheisenbergMy concern with the NZ property ETFs is that the Auckland bubble may be about to burst!Quote:
Originally Posted by simla
-
03-05-2016, 06:31 PMsimla
Ah, but that reflects on your original question. Are you trying to building up a long term income or a long term capital sum? A certain holding in property (commercial) ETFs should, with reasonable luck, continue to pay the same income stream despite the capital value changing due to change in market expectations.
Your question, on the other hand, said you are not aiming at income, suggesting the "growth" you specified was in capital. But I always feel that begs the question, what is the capital for then? But we each have our own ends in mind. -
03-05-2016, 07:44 PMheisenbergLong term capital sum. Income not required whilst still working day to day. More of a nest egg for retirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by simla
-
03-05-2016, 07:54 PMBeeBop
Kind of relevant with respect to index funds - of course the NZ ones are expensive (due to small market) but the read is worthwhile - if you haven't already.
Warren Buffett’s Epic Rant Against Wall Street
Warren Buffett unloaded a 'sermon' about hedge funds and investment consultants at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting
ENLARGE
Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett PHOTO: BLOOMBERG NEWS
By ERIK HOLM
May 2, 2016 11:42 am ET
16 COMMENTS
The “Oracle of Omaha” went on an epic rant against Wall Street this weekend.
Just before lunch at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting on Saturday, Warren Buffettunloaded what he called a “sermon” about hedge funds and investment consultants, arguing that they are usually a “huge minus” for anyone who follows their advice.
The Berkshire chairman has long argued that most investors are better off sticking their money in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund instead of trying to beat the market by employing professional stockpickers. He used the annual meeting to update the tens of thousands in attendance—and others watching via a webcast–about his multi-year bet with hedge fund Protege Partners. The bet, initiated by the New York fund back in 2006, was that over a decade, the cumulative returns of five fund-of-funds picked by Protege would outperform a Vanguard S&P 500 index fund, even when including fees.
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Mr. Buffett showed a chart comparing the cumulative returns of the two sides of the bet since 2008. As of the end of 2015, the S&P 500 index fund had a cumulative return of 65.7%, outdoing the hedge fund teams’s 21.9% return. The S&P has outperformed in six of the eight individual years of the bet too.
The chart was preamble to the real point Mr. Buffett wanted to make: that passive investors can do better than “hyperactive” investments handled by consultants and managers who charge high fees.
“It seems so elementary, but I will guarantee you that no endowment fund, no public pension fund, no extremely rich person” wants to believe it, he said. “They just can’t believe that because they have billions of dollars to invest that they can’t go out and hire somebody who will do better than average. I hear from them all the time.”
But he was just getting started.
“Supposedly sophisticated people, generally richer people, hire consultants, and no consultant in the world is going to tell you ‘just buy an S&P index fund and sit for the next 50 years.’ You don’t get to be a consultant that way. And you certainly don’t get an annual fee that way. So the consultant has every motivation in the world to tell you, ‘this year I think we should concentrate more on international stocks,’ or ‘this manager is particularly good on the short side,’ and so they come in and they talk for hours, and you pay them a large fee, and they always suggest something other than just sitting on your rear end and participating in the American business without cost. And then those consultants, after they get their fees, they in turn recommend to you other people who charge fees, which… cumulatively eat up capital like crazy.”
Mr. Buffett said he’s had a hard time convincing people of this case.
“I’ve talked to huge pension funds, and I’ve taken them through the math, and when I leave, they go out and hire a bunch of consultants and pay them a lot of money,” he said, earning a laugh from the crowd. “It’s just unbelievable.”
“And the consultants always change their recommendations a little bit from year to year. They can’t change them 100% because then it would look like they didn’t know what they were doing the year before. So they tweak them from year to year and they come in and they have lots of charts and PowerPoint presentations and they recommend people who are in turn going to charge a lot of money and they say, ‘well you can only get the best talent by paying 2-and-20,’ or something of the sort, and the flow of money from the ‘hyperactive’ to what I call the ‘helpers’ is dramatic.”
A passive investor whose money is in an S&P 500 index fund “absolutely gets the record of American industry,” he said. “For the population as a whole, American business has done wonderfully. And the net result of hiring professional management is a huge minus.”
Mr. Buffett has long had a testy relationship with Wall Street, and he’s positioned himself for decades as an outsider to the world of New York finance. In addition to repeatedly attacking the fees charged by hedge funds and investment professionals, he’s criticized the tactics of activist shareholders, the danger of derivatives and the heavy use of debt by private-equity firms.
The antipathy can run in the opposite direction as well. As our Anupreeta Das noted in an article last year, many on Wall Street believe the Berkshire chairman to be a hypocrite. They accuse him of hiding behind the image of a folksy, benevolent investor whilepursuing some of the tactics and investing in some of the companies that are the targets of his attacks.
On Saturday, Mr. Buffett worked in a fresh plug for a book he’s been recommending for decades, “Where Are the Customers’ Yachts?,” by Fred Schwed. The title comes from the story of a visitor to New York who was admiring all the nice boats in the harbor, and was told that they belonged to Wall Street bankers. He naively asked where the bankers’ clients kept their boats. The answer: They couldn’t afford them.
[RELATED: 11 Picks from Warren Buffett’s Bookshelf]
“All the commercial push is behind telling you that you ought to think about doing something today that’s different than you did yesterday,” Mr. Buffett told his shareholders. “You don’t have to do that. You just have to sit back and let American industry do its job for you.”
Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger jumped in to offer a counterpoint, of a sort:
“You’re talking to a bunch of people who have solved their problem by buying Berkshire Hathaway,” he said. “That worked even better.”
From 1965 through the end of last year, Berkshire shares have risen 1,598,284%, compared to the 11,355% return on the S&P 500.
MORE IN BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
- Ackman Fires Back to Buffett on Valeant: 'Not a Sewer'
- Warren Buffett's Epic Rant Against Wall Street
- Recap: The 2016 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting
- Ackman to Buffett, Munger: Can't We Get Along
- Buffettpalooza, Should You Care? - Podcast
“There have been a few of these managers who have actually succeeded,” Mr. Munger said. “But it’s a tiny group of people. It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”
Mr. Buffett conceded that point, but concluded the first half of the day’s proceedings by saying that Wall Street was better at salesmanship than investing.
“There’s been far, far, far more money made by people in Wall Street through salesmanship abilities than through investment abilities,” he said. “There are a few people out there that are going to have an outstanding investment record. But very few of them. And the people you pay to help identify them don’t know how to identify them. They do know how to sell you.”
“That’s my message. We’ll come back at one o’clock.”
For video of the remarks, click here and fast forward to the 2:42:20 mark. For our analysis of the other big moments from the weekend, see “Warren Buffett Speaks: 5 Takeaways from Omaha.” For a full recap of the day’s events, check out our live blog of the annual meeting. -
03-05-2016, 08:10 PMtrader_jackson
Long term for me: can't go wrong with the banks... (ASF.NZX)
(just my view...)
Disclosure: Hold ASF -
03-05-2016, 08:12 PMpeat
This is an exercise of matching up the appropriate Smartshare fund to achieve the desired asset allocation mix.
Given there is a very long time horizon , a large , perhaps very large chunk could be in growth assets, but the risk profile should be considered.
My recommendation would be about 60 - 80% growth, a bit of property and the rest bonds. Maybe 15% of value in NZ , maybe a quarter in Aus, and a third in the US
So this would be a good start to forming up the mix
US 500 35.00% Aus Top 20 15.00% NZ Top 10 10.00% Europe 10.00% Asia Pac 5.00% Emerging Mkts 2.00% Total World 5.00% Global Bond 3.00% NZ Bond 5.00% NZ Prop 5.00% Aus prop 5.00% 100.00%
But if one delved a bit deeper or had more to work with one could consider some of the mid cap options as well.
I'm not sure how Smart Shares hedges currency impacts either, which is a critical element because in my mind you DONT want hedged funds for all off shore investments. But it does increase volatility.
I wouldn't consider investing all the funds at the same time either. spread out the buying in phase over a year or more if possible. buy on dips.
my thoughts... -
03-05-2016, 08:19 PMLewylewylewy
My sentiment exactly. Look at the stocktastic results.
-
03-05-2016, 08:26 PMpeatwhat is your sentiment LLL?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewylewylewy
-
03-05-2016, 09:01 PMLewylewylewy
...The Berkshire chairman has long argued that most investors are better off sticking their money in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund instead of trying to beat the market by employing professional stockpickers...
-
03-05-2016, 10:31 PMsimla
Hmm. Some actual figures.
Here's an article analysing the S&P adjusted for inflation : http://www.simplestockinvesting.com/...al-returns.htm
That article reports : S&P adjusted for inflation and with all dividends reinvested, average pa:
1950's 16.7 %
1960's 5.2 %
1970's -1.4 %
1980's 11.6 %
1990's 14.7 %
2000's -3.4 %
1950-2009 7.0 % (Whereas Berkshire averaged 24% pa from 1967 to 2007, I think. Probably not inflation adjusted, but surely well ahead?)
Investing in the s&p index wouldn't have got you far in the 1960s or 1970s or 2000s - those figures include dividends remember. While his bet did spectacularly well from 2008 onwards, that was a serious bull market, as it happened. By contrast, for example, the S&P was flat from 2000 to 2012. -
04-05-2016, 07:43 AMsimla
I'm not against owning an index. Just saying investment decisions should be backed by an objective. I'm dubious that any single investment will outperform all others over time, that's all. So I was putting up figures against this growing conviction that passive index investments are the only sensible choice. They are a choice, yes. But the other options remain on the table.
-
04-05-2016, 10:10 AMheisenberg
I don't want to bring up the passive vs active debate. The task is to divide the 100k amongst the available smartshares. So far peat gets the brownie points
-
04-05-2016, 10:56 AMHarvey SpecterI would probably drop the bond and put more into property. And maybe a bit more focus on midcap that the ozzy 20 and NZ10 in those markets to give better diversification and to try and catch winners on the way up (they probably get losers on the way down to unfortunately).Quote:
Originally Posted by peat
-
04-05-2016, 11:03 AMsimlaWell, that clarifies the question anyway: If you were buying a mix of index ETFs only, what ratio would you put them in!Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg
-
04-05-2016, 11:08 AMLewylewylewy
I really like these sort of threads. I've started a couple of them in the past and found that often it spurs conversation about issues related to the original subject.
People can end up saying some not-quite-relevant, but thought provoking things. You've probably helped someone by starting this thread without even realizing it. -
04-05-2016, 11:58 AMheisenberg
Totally agree Lewy - the snippets of investment advice that people come up with every now and again are priceless. But also worth making sure people don't get too sidetracked! :)
-
04-05-2016, 01:31 PMFranko
This is not exactly based on Smartshares, it is based on Superlife but in the same vein as the original question. The only two differences are Gemino and Superlife 100 are not available via Smartshares. This is a 60/40 mix of NZ vs rest of world.
Fund Allocation Gemino 5.0% NZ Shares Fund 15.0% NZ Property Fund 10.0% Superlife 100 15.0% NZ 50 Portfolio 15.0% Total World ETF 10% US Growth 15% US Value 10% Asia Pacific ETF 5% -
04-05-2016, 02:01 PMunhumanDon't all the smartshare funds reinvest dividends automatically?Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg
Thus the income is effectively capital growth. -
04-05-2016, 03:14 PMtrader_jacksonAbsolutely not, I receive a cash dividend from my ASF shares, although of course you have the option to reinvest automaticallyQuote:
Originally Posted by unhuman
-
04-05-2016, 05:58 PMratkinI would just open up all of them with 1000 dollars in each, then set up automatic payments to add 200 dollars to each at the end of every month. Think there around Twenty of them so after a year or so you would be fully invested.Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg
Alternatively just ignore all the ones focussed on NZ and Australia to give yourself more external diversification -
04-05-2016, 10:27 PMpeatyeh those are the thoughts that crossed my mind but ended up not selecting. bonds act as a stabiliser which property doesn't. so its a risk decision, and in this portfolio, there's already a lot of market risk, gotta reduce that correlation somehowQuote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Specter
And, I did cover myself:p by saying
And thanks for the points HeisenbergQuote:
if one delved a bit deeper or had more to work with one could consider some of the mid cap options
Attachment 8018 -
05-05-2016, 04:50 AMGTM 3442
Too expensive.
0.3% management fee on top of the Vanguard fee for the S&P500 fund.
Makes it a non-starter. Cheaper to DIY directly into the Vanguard fund. -
05-05-2016, 10:27 AMHarvey SpecterBut then subject to FDR on overseas investments. Plus costs involved with investing overseas (overseas bank/broker or custodian needed?)Quote:
Originally Posted by GTM 3442
-
05-05-2016, 11:23 AMvoltage
FDR applies also to funds but they have paid it.
HS good advice but by direct do you mean thru vanguard australia or etfs on the asx. -
05-05-2016, 02:44 PMGTM 3442Different circumstances, Harvey, different circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Specter
-
05-05-2016, 06:46 PMsmplWhy if you want international share exposure don't you want foreign currency exposure? (Smartshares is hedged back to NZD)Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg
Splitting up amongst trackers is messy. Check out ACWI (or ACWV even better for min volatility strategy). Vanguard cheap but aren't the best for an international mix.
Agree that timing IS everything. Terrible time to buy stocks (and bond, and property), over 20+ years you will see such better returns. Don't throw away your money under the false (& lazy) pretense that set and forget will pay off, be patient. -
07-05-2016, 09:58 AMheisenbergI don't have a problem with hedging when it comes to mutual funds as these are generally purchased for long term gains - the risk minimisation is readily accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by smpl
-
08-05-2016, 04:08 AMratkinThe point of these funds is to put money in over time, not as a one off payment. The reality is none of us really know if it is a terrible time to buy stocks or not. Historically when the most people have thought it a bad time to buy stocks has often turned out to be a good time.Quote:
Originally Posted by smpl
-
08-05-2016, 03:14 PMGTM 3442I tend to use these types of funds ( the underlying "base" funds, not the ticket-clipped New Zealand versions) as part of my asset allocation process.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratkin
I haven't a show of picking a dozen winners in the USA, so I simply buy the S&P500 via Vanguard. -
09-05-2016, 07:45 AMheisenbergOut of interest, do you also employ similar tactics for gaining exposure to Europe and Asia, or just stick to the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by GTM 3442
-
09-05-2016, 10:01 AMHarvey Specter
A Q&A by Mary Holme which covers index funds. Says the NZ ones are good but once you have more than $100k, probably worth doing it direct with the overseas versions. SO this thread really is on the cusp (per mary).
If the question was where to put $10k, for the admin costs, the NZ versions would be a 'good' deal. -
09-05-2016, 03:24 PMGTM 3442Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg
A series of ETFs covering various geographies and industries.
But also with an eye to currency - it wouldn't be too clever to have it all in Swiss Francs, or all in US dollars. -
09-05-2016, 03:25 PMGTM 3442Ms Holm's article also provided a fascinating glimpse of the ticket-clipping at which the New Zealand financial services industry is so adept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Specter
-
09-05-2016, 09:21 PMsmplYou're wrong. The limited upside in equities (and bonds, and property) is far outweighed by the upside in commodities and inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratkin
"000 dollars in each, then set up automatic payments to add 200 dollars to each at the end of every month. Think there around Twenty of them so after a year"
Even in your strategy, you are effectively buying equities at all time highs in a one off payment. -
10-05-2016, 04:43 AMGTM 3442Morningstar Australia recently had a feature to the effect that dollar-cost-averaging was a worse idea than one-off purchasesQuote:
Originally Posted by smpl
-
10-05-2016, 08:17 AMHarvey Specterin a rising market, a one off is better. In a falling market, dollar cost averaging is better but not as good as waiting till it is going up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by GTM 3442
-
10-05-2016, 08:42 AMsmpl
I do not disagree that dollar-cost-averaging in the best passive strategy. I use Kiwisaver for this reason: $20.83 every week into MSCI AC, 50% unhedged (3 reasons: govt incentive, international equities, limit NZD exposure). If Smartshares had the right products I would use them. There is still plenty of opportunity in the Kiwisaver product development space.
However I maintain that for a person who wants to make money, ie people on this forum, timing IS everything. -
10-05-2016, 09:16 AMHarvey SpecterQuote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Specter
I dont think dollar cost averaging was ever 'designed' to invest a lump sum. If you are saving (say) $100 a month, DCA says that it is best to drip that into the market rather than wait to time the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by smpl
-
10-05-2016, 01:56 PMheisenbergWhich comes back to one benefit of Smartshares which is the regular savings plan, which allows drip feeding monthly and there are no transaction costs involved. People tend to forget about this when bagging Smartshares as being too expensiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Specter
-
10-05-2016, 02:35 PMHarvey SpecterCompletely agree. For someone wanting a simple low cost investment they can drip fee money into from their salary, it is good. More expensive than if you were in the US but cheap compared to the other NZ alternatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg
The question raised here (supplementary question I guess) is at what point does Smartshares get expensive and it best to go direct. -
11-05-2016, 09:13 AMheisenbergAs you've mentioned earlier re: the Mary Holm article, I'd consider looking elsewhere once over the 100k mark (depending on performance)Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Specter
-
24-11-2020, 04:49 PMManukatana
i cant believe the bubble is still going.
-
27-11-2020, 06:49 AMratkin
Last year or so have been putting money into the european ETF (EUF) Prices are not as inflated as for some other regions. Also a lesser amount into the Total world fund. Basically want more of my money away from NZ
-
22-08-2021, 12:15 PMGRADS
Hi, would any investor want to share their thoughts on how they would split the $100k (original question) amongst Smartshares ETFs for long term growth?
-
22-08-2021, 12:25 PMJeffWI have USG, USF, TWH, LIV, EUF, BOT & AUS, MZY as a way of diversifying out of NZ. I choose to hold NZ shares directly, but if you chose not to then perhaps add them to the mixQuote:
Originally Posted by GRADS
-
22-08-2021, 02:17 PMjustakiwi
Mary also said that one needs at least $30,000 to even consider investing in shares. She was most definitely wrong about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey Specter
-
22-08-2021, 05:53 PMicemanI put a bit of money each month into Smartshares ETFs for long term dollar averaging investment and have done for some time. I have limited myself to 3 ETFs. They are USF about 50-60%, BOT 20-25% & EUF 20-25%. When I look at the geographical and currency spread of revenues from the companies in the USF & EUF, I see no need for further diversification. The only other option I seriously considered was "emerging markets" but decided against is as I think the USF in particular, pretty well covers it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GRADS
All my Australasian investments are directly held.
I've reached a $ number now that I am satisfied with in Smartshares and just yesterday setup a Hatch account for further direct investments into pretty similar ETFs.
This is not a recommendation, just an answer to your question. DYOR. -
23-08-2021, 08:36 AMGRADS
Thanks Iceman. I plan to do something similar with only 3-5 ETF funds which include NZ/AUS. Did you buy directly via Smartshares so there was no brokerage costs or use a trading platform?
I have a hatch account set up to where I will invest up to $50K. As the FIF rules will apply to your future hatch ETFs, do you consider this to be much of an issue? or FIF rules are just part of parcel of growing your wealth? -
23-08-2021, 02:19 PMicemanI’ve bought directly through Smartshares on a monthly basisQuote:
Originally Posted by GRADS