Your Basket
Your Basket
There are no funds in your basket. To add funds to your basket use the Green Plus Icon wherever you see it next to a fund.
Fund name
Aberdeen American Growth  
Fidelity American  
Schroder UK Mid 250  
M&G Recovery  
Jupiter Merlin UK Growth  
Close Basket Open basket

Login

Login

Register

It's look like you're leaving us

What would you like us to do with the funds you've selected

Show me all my options Forget them Save them
Customise this table
 

Woodford and Nimmo trusts upstage flagship funds

Investors who only hold open-ended vehicles are missing out on the best-performing portfolios of some of the biggest names in the industry.

By Joshua Ausden, News Editor, FE Trustnet Follow
Wednesday May 09, 2012


Neil Woodford, Andy Brough, Harry Nimmo and Alexander Darwall are among a number of star managers whose investment trusts have a better record than their higher profile open-ended funds, a recent FE Trustnet study has found.

ALT_TAG The likes of Invesco Perpertual High Income, Standard Life UK Smaller Companies and Jupiter European – which are all multi-billion pound favourites with UK investors – have fallen short of their closed-ended competitors in recent years.

Since Woodford took over as lead manager of the Edinburgh Investment Trust in September 2008, the portfolio has returned 65.45 per cent – more than twice as much as his £12bn Invesco Perpetual High Income fund.

With a one-year historic yield of 4.43 per cent, the trust is also yielding 0.6 per cent more than Invesco’s flagship portfolio.

Performance of fund vs trust since September 2008


ALT_TAG

Source: FE Analytics

Trusts run by FE Alpha Managers Nimmo, Brough and Darwall, as well as emerging market stalwart Dr Mark Mobius, Investec’s Alastair Mundy and Unicorn’s John McClure have been even more dominant.

Over three and five years, all six managers have seen their trusts perform better than the equivalent fund.

One of the biggest margins of outperformance has come in the case of Mobius; according to FE data, his Templeton Emerging Markets trust has delivered 75.55 per cent over five years, compared with 14.42 per cent from the Templeton Global Emerging Markets fund.

While Brough’s £1.3bn Schroder UK Mid 250 fund has come under fire from a number of IFAs for poor performance in recent years, the manager’s £93.6m trust has fared much better.

The trust has outperformed its FTSE 250 ex IT benchmark over one-, three-, five- and 10-year periods. By contrast, the fund has fallen short of the index over all four time periods.

Performance of trusts vs funds over 10-yrs

Name
1-yr returns (%)
3-yr returns (%) 5-yr returns (%) 10-yr returns (%)
Jupiter European Opportunities Trust
-4.6
110.15
30.95
232.13
Jupiter European
-9.01
53.28
30.75
153.77
         
Stan Life UK Smaller Companies
-5.36
84.59
26.86
211.01
Standard Life UK Smaller Companies Trust
-8.31
120.63
73.55
193.75





Schroder UK Mid Cap IT
-0.87
58.49
11.07
157.87
Schroder UK Mid 250
-0.52
37.58
-15.98
112.49





Temple Bar Investment Trust
0.93
64.56
30.02
116.12
Investec UK Special Situations
2.61
44.25
15.81
102.06





Templeton Emerging Markets IT
-13.08
59.45
75.55
410.76
Templeton Global Emerging Markets 
-19.04
19.52
14.42
N/A

Source: FE Analytics


Nimmo’s Standard Life Smaller Companies Trust has a vastly superior record than the Standard Life Smaller Companies fund over three and five years. In spite of a disastrous 2002 in which it lost nearly 60 per cent, the trust is also closing in on its open-ended equivalent over a 10-year period.

Mundy’s Temple Bar Investment Trust has beaten the Investec Special Situations fund comfortably over three-, five- and 10-year periods, and also has a higher one-year historic yield. He took over both in 2002.

While more volatile, Darwall’s Jupiter European Opportunities trust has fared much better than his fund over the last decade. The £221m closed-ended portfolio has the best record of any European fund or trust over 10 years, with returns of 232.13 per cent.

Performance of trust vs fund over 10-yrs

ALT_TAG

Source: FE Analytics

The study once again raises the question of why investors tend to overlook investment trusts in favour of open-ended funds, even though these vehicles tend to benefit from lower charges and gearing in the long-term.

Gearing can, of course, work against trusts, particularly during down markets, which is why the majority tend to be more volatile than their open-ended counterparts. However, the difference in returns during up markets can be huge.

In the case of the Standard Life UK Smaller Companies Trust and fund, for example, the difference in returns between the two in 2009 and 2010 was 13.33 and 23.29 per cent respectively. Although the portfolios aren’t identical, in general the major holdings are the same. Paddy Power, ASOS, Rightmove and Abcam are top-10 positions in both portfolios.

The effect of cost on performance in the long-term, which was examined in detail in a recent FE Trustnet study, has also had a bearing. In most cases the total expense ratio (TER) for trusts is significantly lower than their open-ended counterparts; for example the Jupiter European Opportunities trust has a TER of 0.94 per cent, compared with 1.79 per cent for Darwall’s Jupiter European fund.



 
Add your comment
Step 1: Tell us what you think...
 

Step 2: Prove you're not a robot...
You don't have to do this every time you submit a comment.

Login or register free and you won't see it again.
Enter the words above:
Step 3: Submit your comment...
Submit
 
Stephen Antony Edwards May 09th, 2012 at 09:06 PM

Always interesting to highlight the differences. What is the trust run by John McClure? Is it offshore registered?

Reply
Ark Welder May 09th, 2012 at 10:25 PM

McClure co-manages Acorn Income Fund, which is incorporated in Guernsey. I wouldn't consider it as being directly comparable to the OEICs that he maanges because AIF has around a quarter of its assets invested in large-cap corporate bonds, and these are managed by Premier Asset Management.

Reply
Theo May 09th, 2012 at 03:51 PM

It is a fact that IT do, on the average, perform better than UT, especially in rising markets, but they have many disadvantages which make them unattractive to small investors. They are much more complicated and there is far less information on them for a start. The reluctance of IFAs to embrace them, even after the abolition of commission sales, is well founded. IFAs know the market, IT managers live in cloud coocoo land

Reply
Theo May 09th, 2012 at 03:28 PM

ITs do seem to perform better than UT probably because they can borrow many to invest in bad times, but they are far more opague, and volatile,have premiums and discounts, variable charges etc. Their managers are not gradeded and most of them do not even subscribe to TN so that we can get find more information on them easily. They are not investor friendly at all and I prefer the devil I know to the devil I do not.

Reply
L-C-G May 09th, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Do a little research. I have been a small investor in ITs for over 20 years, and hardly use open-ended funds. There may be more complexity - and sometimes risk - but I disagree there is less information - I would say more. These are limited companies and therefore produce detailed annual and interim reports, with more info than UT. More importantly they are close-ended - so unlike open-ended UT/OIECs the manager does not have to sell the assets at a loss when investors take fright in a downturn, but can get on with managing the portfolio fully and unhindered by sentiment with their expertise, which after all is what we are paying for. This is the primary reason why ITs outperform I believe - the managers are allowed to manage.

Reply
Ark Welder May 09th, 2012 at 10:13 PM

As you admit to not understanding the subject, your comments have no purpose.

Reply
Ilmarinen May 10th, 2012 at 10:55 PM

To which comment was that rebuke addressed?!

Reply
Robert May 09th, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I have noticed also there are a couple of "fund of funds" run by Jupiter and M&G which invest solely in investment trusts. Their recent performance does not appear to have been great, but are they worth considering?

Reply
Kapulski May 09th, 2012 at 04:25 PM

"Funds of Funds" just mean you pay two sets of fund fees. I can't see the point myself.

Reply
L-C-G May 09th, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Maybe - but if you have small amounts to invest and want to take advantage of the sector it may be worth it.

More interestingly I think: there are open-ended funds UT/OIECs (and some ITs)investing in IT fund of funds, but to the best of my knowledge no ITs that invest in UT/OIECs as a fund of funds. Both sectors run by professional investors. Does that tell you something?

Reply
Philip Dondi May 09th, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Excellent information - keep up the good work !

Reply
 

Back to top of page

 

Follow FE Trustnet

Video Headlines

More Videos

Gray: Market rally has made me more bearish than ever

GMT 15:30 | 30-Apr-2013

From the analyst's desk

GMT 10:00 | 29-Apr-2013

 
Poll

Would you be concerned if a manager of a fund you owned took charge of another portfolio as well?

Yes

No

Vote

 
 
  • Stay connected with FE trustnet
  • Authorised and Regulated by the
    Financial Services Authority
  • © Trustnet Limited 2013. All Rights Reserved.
  • Please read our Terms of Use / Disclaimer
    and Privacy and Cookie Policy.
  • Data supplied in conjunction with Thomson Financial Limited,
    London Stock Exchange Plc, StructuredRetailProducts.com
    and ManorPark.com