Twelve months ago, I had the honour of penning my inaugural multi-manager column for Money Marketing. The brief was to provide an insight into the world of multi-manager, either on a technical matter or in relation to how multi-managers look at funds. Maybe even on a hot topic of the day. Since then, the number of contributors to this column has extrapolated almost as fast as the number of funds of funds has grown. Almost, but not quite.Unfortunately, recent columns seem to have become subtle (or, in some cases, not so subtle) plugs for the authors’ own funds. In an effort to get to back to basics, I will attempt to get through the next 500 words or so without my marketing hat on. I recently had the good fortune to interview Guy de Blonay, manager of the New Star global financials fund. Guy (if I may use his first name – I recently got into to trouble with one industry figure for using his Christian name so one cannot be too careful even in the 21st Century) has managed the £153m fund since its launch in December 2001. The first thing that struck me was that this portfolio is a different shape to many I have seen. It contains 66 holdings but the top 10 account for around 40 per cent of the portfolio. Indeed, the biggest holdings are 6.3 per cent, 5.7 per cent and 5.6 per cent whereas the median holding is just 1 per cent of the fund and 17 holdings are below 0.5 per cent in size. This is a man of conviction, knowing exactly how much of a certain financial stock he wants to hold, prepared to give his most favoured ideas all the support they need while using the long tail of small positions as a nursery for his next themes. Guy describes this approach as an efficient allocation of capital – a popular mantra but one that is seldom followed so decisively as with the New Star global financials fund. Not far away in London W6, Robin Geffen follows a different style in putting together the portfolio of the Neptune income fund. The fund has 33 holdings – not 32 or 34 but 33 and always 33. All are equally weighted at 3 per cent each (1 per cent is lost in the roundings but you get the point). Like Guy, Robin follows his own particular methodology with commendable consistency. Indeed, the Neptune income fund will even go as far as splitting the fund down to 11 “steady Eddie” stocks, 11 “hidden fruit” stocks and 11 “tactical play” stocks. Clearly, Robin is not making a value judgement between his very best ideas but, rather, he appreciates that the benefits of a disciplined approach outweigh those of providing most capital to a preferred handful of his selections. It has certainly worked for the £250m Neptune income fund because it is ranked eighth out of 87 funds in the sector over the year to June 30, 2006 and is one of this year’s best performers to date. Which method is right? Both funds have quite stunning performance figures, a clear process and are headed by talented managers. On that basis, both styles tick all the boxes. Different styles, different approaches, but both work for different managers to the same end – performance. Somewhere between these two extremes lie many other funds without the discipline of Robin Geffen or the courage of their convictions like Guy de Blonay. Perhaps the most important thing to learn from the above is the positive approach of investment houses which allow their star managers to manage money in their own way and how, like in many of the biggest firms, the imposition of a common house style and process across all products can stifle such ability. There, I didn’t mention any one of our three funds once. Oh drat. Jason Britton is fund of funds manager at T Bailey
IFAs fulfil an invaluable role for small and medium-sized investors and are unfairly criticised because of the actions of a few, says New Star chairman John Duffield. He says the big banks are not as interested in the smaller investor, who he believes will suffer if IFAs are squeezed out of the market. He says: […]
Innovation is needed to keep the protection industry afloat
Abbey wants to more than double its annual-premium pension and investment business to over £2bn in the next 18 months. It is seeking to increase its number of branch-based advisers from 350 to about 750.
The practitioner panel and the FSA are rowing about the quality of the regulator’s mystery-shopping exercises.
Jim Grant – Senior Product Insight & Technical Support Analyst There’s sometimes confusion around what triggers the money purchase annual allowance. Find out what does and what doesn’t trigger the MPAA. The money purchase annual allowance (MPAA) is a reduced annual allowance that can apply to contributions to defined contribution (DC) schemes. The following table […]
- Top trends
News and expert analysis straight to your inboxSign up
Latest from Money Marketing
I always try to check my Twitter feed over breakfast. Recently, a tweet from IFA Philippa Gee caught my eye. She had taken her time to attend an investment conference and found she was the only woman there. Comments followed that this occurrence is far too common. According to Unbiased, just 13 per cent of […]
Consumer champion Martin Lewis has today issued High Court proceedings against Facebook over scam adverts published on the site that use his name, picture or reputation. Lewis, who is the face of website Money Saving Expert, is bringing a lawsuit against the social media juggernaut for defamation seeking exemplary damages. Lewis says any money paid […]
Michael Klimes examines if advisers can resolve all drawdown issues themselves or if a wider effort is needed