How many funds should you hold in your pension or Isa? ANDREW OXLADE
It is, after all, easy to get carried away, enticed by a racy growth story or an investment that has foundered and may bounce back.
Picking investments is a fascinating hobby, fellow hobbyists would probably agree. It is the art of understanding the world better than the next investor - the trends, the risks, the growth opportunities - and then making better returns as a result.
But dangers lurk. We all have biases in our decision making that can lead to questionable investment choices. And those decisions can build up into an accumulation of decisions that manifest themselves in holding lots and lots of funds.
So, what is the right amount to hold?
For my part, I have five funds per £100,000 of money in my pension.
But perhaps it's more beneficial to use a bigger pool of data. Fidelity has more than 550,000 DIY investors in the UK, offering a huge pool, and its average numbers for various tiers of wealth offer a benchmark.
How many is too many?
Those with portfolios of between £100,000 and £200,000 have an average of eight fund holdings, as the chart above shows.
Those with larger portfolios seem to resist the opportunity to keep buying more, with the number plateauing at 17 from £500,000 portfolio sizes.
Is that too many funds or too few? It's difficult to give a firm answer.
So much depends on what you want to achieve and the risks you are willing to stomach.
These factors will dictate the investment mix included in a portfolio.
For example, someone investing for at least 10 years and comfortable with volatility might want to go 100 per cent into stock market funds; someone retiring in five years and planning to withdraw money may want a portion of the portfolio in bonds, which tend to move counter to stock markets, although not always.
Investors may also want other diversifying assets such as real estate or commodities. A financial adviser can help work out what you need.
Even within stock markets, investors may want a bent towards a particular region or country.
So rather than following the typical allocation that a global tracker fund would give (67 per cent US, 13 per cent European and 4 per cent UK for the Legal & General Global Equity Index, for example) they may want more, or less, in each. An investor may want more technology exposure, or to back renewable energy.
This can be achieved by buying regional funds and specialist funds - and this is when excessive fund buying can happen.
Here, I've set out four questions to ask yourself.
1: How many investments can you safely monitor?
Selecting your own shares requires some homework.
With funds, a manager does that for you. But the fund investor must also keep an eye on each fund, especially for the exit of a star manager.
And managers can also have fallow spells.
It then requires a call on whether to hold until their mojo returns, or to sell. Either way, holding actively managed funds requires more monitoring.
Do you have the time to do that with 20 active funds?
Of course, funds that aim to track an index - so-called passive funds - require less attention.
Many of the investment platforms offer deeply researched lists on funds, which can be helpful. For ours - the Select 50 - the research and selections are undertaken by Fundhouse, an independent funds rating agency.
2: Do you have hidden overlaps?
Commonly, an investor may have a core holding of a global stock market tracker fund, with other funds that add a flavour of particular countries or regions they want to back.
And within that part of the portfolio, it's just possible that the engaged investor has had their head turned by funds of a similar ilk - perhaps two high income funds that might both hold British American Tobacco. This may not be a problem but it is good to know where you do hold overlaps.
Some investment platforms have 'X-ray' tools that enable you to see these overlaps. They can show you the percentage of your portfolio you have in each company.
I was alarmed earlier this year by my exposure to Nvidia across many funds. This included index tracking funds in the core and active funds on the periphery.
3: Is it more expensive to be a multiple fund holder?
DIY investors face two primary costs - the charges on the fund and the charges applied by the fund platform for holding it for you.
An actively managed fund will commonly cost around 0.75% or £75 a year per £1,000 of investment; passive funds cost a lot less.
Platform percentages vary considerably and so do pricing structures. This is important to the thinking on the number of funds to hold. Some platforms charge a dealing fee to buy and sell funds, normally as a pay-off for lower ongoing costs. However, this can rack up if you hold a lot of funds and like to tinker.
And with investment trusts, the cousins of funds that trade as listed companies, there is nearly always a fee for buying and selling.
It is worth applying this lens to your thinking. Small allocations to many funds may not significantly influence overall portfolio performance and may add unnecessary costs.
4: Would you be better with a 'simple life' option?
It kind of defeats the point of being a DIY investor, but you could stick with a single fund that is a ready-made portfolio. DIY-ing isn't for everyone, after all.
Such funds can offer some diversification, which is key, by holding a mix of assets. If one flags, another may pick up the baton: when share prices fall, bond prices should rise, or that's the theory. A popular allocation is to divide 60% in shares and 40% in bonds, or 80/20 for those willing to take more risk.
You can do this cheaply and easily with a single fund. The Vanguard LifeStrategy fund range is an example, with 80/20 and 60/40 funds among others. The simplicity of such funds, which track markets rather than actively selecting investments, has made them popular in recent years. There are also lots of actively managed funds that aim to do this and beat the index.
Will I reduce my fund holdings?
In short, yes. Or at the very least I'll be mindful of the very questions I've raised and that will help limit expansion from where I'm at. But ultimately, managing a DIY portfolio is an enjoyable hobby – and that enjoyment is something I wouldn't want to diminish.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Jeremy Clarkson's 'weird' rule that caused controversy at his Farmer's Dog pub is finally solved
The 'weird' rule at 's Farmer's Dog pub that saw staff repeatedly let down punters has finally been solved after months of backlash. The former Top Gear presenter opened a country pub alongside his Oxfordshire farm Diddly Squat, last year and announced he would only be using products and ingredients that were 100 percent British. It left commonplace items including Coca Cola, coffee and even ketchup firmly off the menu at the Cotswolds pub. Although many were supportive of the rule, so many punters would ask for ketchup to accompany their meals that staff resorted to putting up signs informing customers it was not available. But now the problem has finally been solved, thanks to Isle of Wight firm Condimaniac. The company decided to take on the challenge and has now successfully created an all-British ketchup, made from Isle of Wight tomato passata, apple cider vinegar from Hanmpshire, Essex salt and British sugar and onions. The firm has been documenting its progress on the product online, and said it was especially difficult to develop as no UK firm produces tomato puree. After successfully launching the condiment, co-founder of the company Kier Kemp said: 'Making a 100 per cent British ketchup after Jeremy Clarkson alerted us to the fact there wasn't one was very hard. When the former Top Gear presenter first opened the doors to his watering hole he was on a mission to only sell 100 percent British-grown products 'We had to put on our big boy pants.' In a blog post describing the process of making the ketchup, he admitted it was a 'massive faff' and said staff had 'had to go to great lengths to get the right consistency and flavour.' Co-founders Mr Kemp and Jennifer Dreier delivered an initial batch to the Farmer's Dog in June for staff to sample. Just before they met with manager, Annie, customers flocked to try the sauce, with one stating it was 'amazing'. 'I am not having Heinz again that is for sure,' another said. Another staff member at the Farmers Puppy, a 'small but mighty version of the pub in a tent', gave them kudos for their product. Condimaniac initially made 1,700 bottles of the product, with many destined to be sold at the pub's butcher and bottle shop and at Clarkson's farm. The product, costing £7.95, has already sold out on the firm's website. Reflecting on how impressed he was with the pub, Mr Kemp said: 'It is not just a gimmick for them they do really live and breathe this 100 percent British thing.' He later dubbed them the 'best wholesale clients I have ever dealt with', adding: 'Everyone I have met is super lovely.' 'I am glad that I can report they are actually nice people. It is not always like that.' A source close to Clarkson's pub told the Sun: 'Jeremy and the team support the British food and farming industry. 'So he made no apologies for not selling ketchup, no matter how many times staff had to let customers down. 'But the pub's always said that if a British company could do it with all-British ingredients, it would get on the menu.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves considers ‘mansion tax' to fill Treasury black hole
Rachel Reeves is considering hitting the owners of high-value properties with capital gains tax when they sell their homes as part of an attempt to fill a £40bn hole in the public purse. The chancellor is said to be looking at ending the current exemption from capital gains tax for primary residences as she seeks ways to raise cash in the face of dire warnings about the state of the public finances – a move that would be seen as a 'mansion tax'. Such a move would see higher-rate taxpayers pay 24 per cent of any gain in the value of their home, while basic rate taxpayers would be hit with an 18 per cent levy. Sources told The Times that under proposals being considered for the autumn budget, the private residence relief would end for properties above a certain threshold. The threshold is said to still be under consideration, but a £1.5 million starting point would hit around 120,000 homeowners who are higher-rate taxpayers with capital gains tax bills of £199,973. Asked about the plans, Treasury minister Torsten Bell declined to rule it out, insisting any potential changes were matters for the chancellor and would be set out at a budget. Asked to rule out hitting the owners of high-value properties with capital gains tax, the pensions minister told Sky News: 'Working people and people's living standards is what this government is all about. 'We've seen wages rise more in the first 10 months of this government than the first 10 years of the last Conservative government. 'But of course, as you know, questions for tax are for the budget and they're for chancellors.' It comes amid concerns that ending primary residence relief could deter people from selling their homes, slow the housing market and could have a particular impact for older people looking to downsize. Aneisha Beveridge, head of research at the estate agent Hamptons, said: 'It's a big change that would hit long-term owners hardest and create a cliff-edge at £1.5m, distorting behaviour around that point. 'While the headline gains look substantial, they're often the result of decades of ownership and, in some cases, house prices haven't even kept pace with inflation. 'For households who don't need to move, this could act as a strong disincentive to sell, dampening transactions and potentially weighing on house price growth and Treasury revenues alike.' But there are growing questions over how the government will raise the money to fill the gap in the public finances, given Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on 'working people' leaves the chancellor with a limited number of workable options. The scale of the challenge facing her in the autumn budget was illustrated by the NIESR economic think tank warning this month that Ms Reeves is set for a £41 billion shortfall on her self-imposed rule of balancing day-to-day spending with tax receipts in 2029-30.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Martin Lewis shares how workers can secure unpaid holiday cash windfall
Workers have been advised by Martin Lewis's money-saving service to check they are getting all the paid time off they are owed. All employees are entitled to holiday pay whether they're full-time, part-time, temporary or seasonal. Their employers must give them what they're entitled to, meaning it is wise to keep track. The first step is to find out your status as a worker, according to Mr Lewis's Money Saving Expert website, as this will determine what you are entitled to. Not everyone who works has worker or employee status (some gig economy workers, for example), which means they are likely not entitled to holiday pay. An easy way to check is whether the worker receives payslips from their employer or not. If they do, they are likely an employee. However, the best way to be sure is to check the contract or ask the employer. Money Saving Expert shared the story of Lola, 17, whose mother said she was able to secure £240 in unpaid holiday pay after working as a kitchen porter at her local pub for two years. The teenager hadn't taken any paid holiday during her employment, as she didn't know she was entitled to it. Getting in touch with her former employer, the pub backdated two years' worth of holiday pay – £218. Lola then even got in touch with a cafe where she had worked the previous summer, finding out she was also owed £23.87 by them. Her mother said: 'It's a lot of money, especially when you're only 17. She's going to use it to save up for driving lessons. I wanted to highlight this as I'm sure there are other young people working and not aware of their entitlements.' Figuring out how much holiday pay a worker is entitled to can be tricky. Employees and workers are legally entitled to 5.6 working weeks of paid holiday a year, meaning the exact amount differs depending on how much they work. For a full-time worker, this works out to 28 days of paid holiday a year. Employers are allowed to include bank holidays in this, but not all do. Working out a part-time worker's entitlement is a matter of multiplying the number of days a week they work by 5.6. If they leave their employment without taking all of this entitlement, their employer must pay for any untaken holiday. This will require the worker to communicate with their former employer. Pat Hicks, advisor for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas), said: "Some people might find it quite a daunting idea to raise a concern with their employer, but it may be a genuine mistake they did not realise has been made. Talking to the employer informally might be enough to highlight the issue and get it resolved."
