Hi Henry, I prefer not to disclose individual position sizes so let’s just say it’s one of my larger global holdings although it’s not my largest.

I would agree that the number of holdings is a factor in my performance being fairly similar to world indices however that’s somewhat by design. I’m happy taking a little extra risk but, given it’s essentially a retirement fund, I don’t want to get too aggressive either.

Yep, certainly tough to beat trackers over extended periods and measuring your performance can be a major challenge in itself.

On the cost front, though, I am including more in the way of costs for the trusts/funds that I actually hold than for the notional trackers I am comparing them against. So, I don’t think the trackers would be ahead, not yet at least!

For the trusts/funds, I’m using closing prices so this reflects any underlying management charges and other costs that are paid from within those vehicles. Ditto by using closing prices for the trackers.

With my actual holdings, as I am using the cash and stock value in my accounts, I’m including any holding costs I have to pay to my broker and any dealing costs I incur along the way when I trade.

However, I am not including any equivalent real-world holding costs for the tracker funds. They would vary depending on which broker I used to hold them and might be just £120pa with II, for example, but substantially higher if I used Vanguard’s own service (0.15%) or someone like AJ Bell or HL.

This was an existing portfolio, so I am not assuming I bought it all on 1 Jan 2018 or that I am selling it in its entirety to get the latest value (I’m likely to sell it piecemeal over a few decades and any disposal costs will get counted as they are incurred).

Lastly, I’m using pre-tax figures in both cases, so assuming no income tax is due on dividends or CGT on disposals. In reality, I have incurred some of the former (and would have incurred a similar amount if I held the tracker in a real-life account) but none of the latter over the last few years.

If I incur any significant tax costs then I may need to revisit this but it keeps things simpler in the meantime.

@The Investor – Yes, it’s a lot tougher to beat over the long term than many people think, especially those who haven’t been investing that long. It’s been good to see a few managers explicitly calling out just how exceptional the last 12 months have been, helping to moderate investor expectations.

Hansa was one I looked at briefly a long time ago, probably around the same time I ended up buying Caledonia (and I had RCP already). I can’t remember what put me off adding it to my portfolio, but I suspect it may have been the sheer size of the Ocean Wilsons position at the time.

I kind of think of RCP as still being a discount as they flagged in early March that the NAV post the Coupang IPO was nearly £2 higher than the 2,316p they announced for the end of February. With the volatility that we’ve seen over the last year, these monthly NAV updates seem outdated before they are even published.

@J – I think something similar probably helped me hold onto RCP over the last few years. With the size of CLDN’s reserves, it should have little trouble continuing to add to its record of dividend increases, so it’s definitely worth considering for those who want to put more emphasis on a rising income.

I have 5 years before retirement so its safety first and Im increasingly thinking of income. Looking back I should have stuck more with ITs rather than various dalliances with funds.

I think we’ve all dallied in Caledonia from time to time. And Hansa. Big discounts that rarely seem to really close much. But I do think you undersell the RIT narrowing, if you don’t mind me saying. 🙂 It’s gone from a double-digit discount to a premium of 6% – so a ‘free’ 15% move on top of NAV. 🙂 Happy days, and there was even time to buy after the Coupang news. (I know, because I re-upped on that RNS after stupidly and impatiently selling it shortly before!)

p.s. Thanks for the link!