My Quinn Life - reassurance on my choice

M

MissRibena

Registered User
Messages
350
Hi everyone

On taking out my SSIA, I never thought I'd be able to contribute much to it so just opened a Fixed rate one. As it turned out I did get to contribute and in the end lamented not having an equity based one, so when it matured, I decided to put a good lump into a Quinn Life Freeway policy.

I've chosen to go:
30 China
30 Eurozone
20 Biotech
20 Celtic

I read all the stuff here and I know in the end it's a bit of a gamble and thought I'd picked a mix of funds that suited my not-so-brave-but-braver-than-a-deposit-account outlook. Although I am in it for the long-haul, in the couple of weeks it has been open, it's only seems to be going down.

Just looking for opinions to make sure I haven't done anything mental and then I'm going to try to stop looking at the (bloody addictive) quinn website.

Rebecca
 
Hi MissRibena,

I opened a QL fund back in March with a few grand and have made about 10 % so far. Some days its 12% then it falls back. I'm taking a long term view and am not worried about this as I am keeping a lot of cash back for now and feel more comfortable about drip feeding it on days the markets do relatively badly. This strategy requires patience and I think patience is a good virtue to have when investing.

I think you should have less exposure to Biotech. I have absolutely nothing invested in Biotech at all and dont know if theres any merit in it. From what I see the risk doesnt justify the reward here compared to other funds. This is just my opinion though.
The Celtic fund hasnt done too well recently but I think you have to look at each moment as though it was your first time choosing the funds with the available money and as long as the Irish economy does well then the pattern should continue. Switching the funds may mean losing out on the bounce back. Some people think the Celtic fund is a proxy for the US fund as our economy depends so much on how well the US economy is doing. I find it interesting you have avoided the US Freeway totally.
I get the feeling though that Eurostoxx (with no currency risk) is less risky than Celtic or US but still has the potential to perform as well looking forward. I could be wrong though.

China is risky as it may be heading for a short term downwards correction and the charges on that fund are particularly high compared to buying ETFs.
However if you wish to have 30% invested in a high risk high return strategy long term then I think maybe you should spread the risk and have 20% China and 10% Emerging markets or 10% Japan as Japan may do very well out of the new emerging market in China while not having the same bubble problem as its neighbour.
If you stick to a high risk element of 30% but tone it down a bit then 20% China, 5% Japan and 5% Emerging markets could be a runner.
I think investing in the EUROSTOXX is a pretty good idea as its a well diversified index with many world class companies*and Germany often called the economic powerhouse of Europe and a huge exporter appears to be recovering from the costs of unification.
I would feel comfortable about advising you to get out of Biotech and into Eurostoxx and diversify the risk you have in the orient across China/Emerging Markets and Japan instead. If more conservative elements are holding up and form the core of your fund then you can take onboard some risk without worrying that it will all disappear into nothing overnight.

All this is just my view at the time of writing, bear in mind its not professional advice and you have to make sure you are comfortable with the level of risk you are taking on. Hindsight is 20-20 and we may be looking back in 10 years thinking damn I'm a fool and I wish I had invested 100% in China but looking forward its best to diversify around the potential opportunities as it could so easily go belly up given the nature of stock markets and a comonsense view is you need to match the risk you are taking with the potential reward.
Another thing is if you spread it around more than theres a possibility of reduced volatility and if you need the money you can cash in a fund which is doing well. Its by no means simple because this might mean you are leaving the best performing part of your policy but such is the burden of having to make our own decisions ;)
So my 2 cents is get out of Biotech, keep Eurostoxx and diversify your far eastern holdings while always being aware that the stock market still could be overvalued and hence more risky than the perception on the ground even if the economy and companies are doing well.
Dripfeeding sums of money during low periods while holding back some cash (e.g in Rabobank) ready to invest (at value prices) if things collapse is a good defense against overvaluation. (I'm just not sure how quickly you can move your money out of rabo if the situation arises).
I dont need to remind anyone that I could be wrong as much as I could be right. Even if the whole world had the same view we could all be wrong *or right. Thats the risk we have to live with when we get involved in the stock market.

Good luck :)


sign.







*edit removed unknown code due to browser parsing error*
 
[FONT=&quot]If you’ve a very long-term investment horizon you could probably take on a bit more non-euro denominated risk and lower the Euro and Celtic funds by a few percent, and put it in UK or US. I could never see the point in investing in Biotech unless you also invest in the US Freeway, i.e. decide how much of your fund you want in USD denominated funds; put most of it in S&P, and then a smaller % in Biotech or Tech. 70% of the US market is in the S&P and it’s not in Biotech. China’s a bit of a gamble, so with 30% in, you’ll either end up rich, or be in for a bumpy ride. (Just for interest, my allocation over QL and other providers is: Euro/IE 24%; US 24%; UK 16%; Jap 8%; Others 8%; Property (Euro/IE and UK) 16%; Cash 4%.).[/FONT]
 
hi, i too was going to invest a lump sum but decided against it, took advantage of decent deposit rates, no expert but markets world wide look are at five year peak, dip feeding 200 euro amonth into quinn,gone euro 25 us 20 japan 25 uk 5 latin 5 emerging 20. waiting to see if markets drop in next year or two then invest lump sum. also investing 250 into aib regular saver,does this seem like a good idea opinions welcome.
 
gone fishing said:
hi, i too was going to invest a lump sum but decided against it, took advantage of decent deposit rates, no expert but markets world wide look are at five year peak, dip feeding 200 euro amonth into quinn,gone euro 25 us 20 japan 25 uk 5 latin 5 emerging 20. waiting to see if markets drop in next year or two then invest lump sum. also investing 250 into aib regular saver,does this seem like a good idea opinions welcome.
Click to expand...

That seems like a sensible strategy. Every step which minimises short term risk with an eye for long term gain is sensible in my opinion.
 
You are probably better off just forgetting about it and maybe checking every 6 months or so. Although that is easier said than done & i suffer the same. (when they're going down it tends to be easier not to check......!). On your spread, it's a roll of the dice really, but if your in it for the long haul (5+ yrs) you will probably be okay, or at least not lose a huge amount. My advice is to reconsider China - I think China is one of those places where if you're going to invest you need a proper well managed fund (which carry high charges unfortunately). I don't know about the quinn one but if it's any kind of tracker then I wouldn't be investing in China that way.
 
Hi Rebecca, just my tuppence-worth on your choice of funds. I'm no expert, but it might give you something to think about.

You refer to yourself as "not-so-brave", but the majority of your investment could probably be deemed "high risk", in my opinion. For the following reasons:

China - you have 30% invested in what is undoubtedly a high-risk market. Talk of "bubbles" in China are common now. The Chinese economy is likely to be very volatile in the next few years. There has been some interesting discussion on AAM about China, do a search.

Biotech - These types of fund are extremely volatile. Plus you are probably exposing yourself to a currency risk with this choice of fund. I would guess most of the stocks in this fund are US-based. So, add 20% US and 30% China. That's a big currency risk.

Celtic - opinions differ, but I don't invest in any Irish shares for one simple reason - I live and work here. If the Irish economy goes splat, my job/livelihood may/will suffer. I don't want my investments to suffer also. Investing in Euro shares/funds allows me to diversify a bit more. Some might not agree with this 'strategy', but I think it makes sense.

Finally, if you're investing through funds, there's no point in checking the value each week. You should be investing by diversifying your portfolio, reducing currency risk to a comfortable level, and (most of all) invest for the long term. Keep making those contributions and check the value of your fund 3 or 4 times a year. Otherwise you will drive yourself crazy looking at those fluctuations.

Like I said, just my tuppence ....
K.
 
Thanks everyone for the replies.

I made a switch today and got out of the Biotech and spread the rest around a bit more. I suppose I was braver than I thought (especially when I thought I'd be watching it go up and not down!).

It's funny; at work I do a lot of work with foreign currency forward contracts and it doesn't cost me a thought. Amazing the difference when it comes to your own money!

Thanks again
Rebecca
 
From reading all your replies and other info i have just made a switch to my funds in quinn-life. Previously it was:
5% tech
40% euro
30% celtic
20% china
5% bio

now it is:

5% Japan
40% Euro
25% celtic
20% China
10% Emerging markets
 
PMU said:
You might consider the findings of this article: Mathematical Illusion: Why Dollar-Cost Averaging Does Not Work
http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/2006_Issues/jfp1006-art-eight.cfm

Personally, I think if you have the dosh for a lump sum investment you should do it, and if you haven't, you should drip feed.
Click to expand...

In a falling or soon to be falling market , might dripfeeding make sense ? Could whether it makes sense depend on your view of the markets direction ?
 
sign said:
In a falling or soon to be falling market , might dripfeeding make sense ? Could whether it makes sense depend on your view of the markets direction ?
Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense to me. If you decide correctly the market trend is downward and you average into the market, the first tranches of shares you buy will be at a higher price than later ones.

If you really had confidence the market was going to fall, wouldn't it be better to short it, wait for lower prices, and use the gains on your short position to buy even more shares at the now lower price?

Of course, this all depends on the reliability of your crystal ball!
 
gonk said:
If you decide correctly the market trend is downward and you average into the market, the first tranches of shares you buy will be at a higher price than later ones.
Click to expand...

Yes but assuming the market is falling then the later contributions would be a lot better value than if you simply put a lump sum in at the beginning before the fall so you are minimising losses . But if the market is rising then you are making money just not as much. By reducing the risk you have also reduced the potential reward.
One of the previous posters is investing by drip feeding and holding back a lump sum even though he appears to believe the markets could fall in the next 2 years.
I think it makes sense for some people to drip feed if it means they can sleep at night and if it fits in with their view of the stock markets that they dont want to punt everything in one go.
If would have to fit their appetite for risk. Theres no risk in leaving a few grand in Rabo while trying to form a view about what to do next.
 
sign said:
Yes but assuming the market is falling then the later contributions would be a lot better value than if you simply put a lump sum in at the beginning before the fall so you are minimising losses.
Click to expand...

I'm not making the point clearly - in a market falling as you suggest, the best value could be obtained by allowing it to continue to fall until it is as near bottom as you can judge, then invest the lump sum. In reality, of course, few investors can time the market in this way. The point of the article linked to is that averaging into the market generally produces a worse investment outcome than buying in in one go.

(This is distinct from the situation of someone who is saving regularly out of income and who has no choice but to average in.)
 
So it's all gone a bit Pete Tong with my Quinn Life thing and there's a loss of around 20% at the moment on it.

I don't need to cash it in and I know this is a long-term investment. However, it's still not nice seeing my SSIA money in the doldrums and I just wondered is there anything I should be doing with it or just grin and bear it and hope that whenever I do need the cash, it will have sorted itself out?

Maybe it's worth mentioning I have a pension fund (invested in a mix but a UK bias) and a very small endownment policy which are probably in the same boat. I don't feel as involved with their investment as I only get statements once a year and I don't have the same access to the fund but the issues are the same, I suppose.

Rebecca
 
A similar thing happened in 2003 to people who opened investment-type SSIAs in 2002 when stock markets fell in late 02, early 03. A lot of people were on here fretting about the choice they had made and some switched over to deposit-type SSIA.

By the time of maturity of this scheme, the investment accounts in general gave better returns compared to the deposit accounts.
 
ClubMan said:
So a year is too short a period of time to be judging or getting worried about performance.
Click to expand...
‘Buy and hold’ is not ‘buy and forget’.
A prudent investor should, each year, review the performance of her portfolio against her asset allocation strategy, identify underperforming and overperforming asset classes, and decide if re-balancing in necessary, and decide where to channel future investment money, i.e. into the existing assets or to introduce new asset classes into the portfolio. It would also be a good idea to start gathering some performance statistics on the portfolio (e.g. performance, standard deviation, sharpe ratio, etc.).
 
Thanks everyone.

I do know the basic premise is not to panic, which I'm not. I just wanted to make sure that that meant simply to sit tight. While there is some flexibility in the Quinn funds, now I see it would be nicer if it there was more diversification across business sectors that might allow me to have switched to green funds or commodity funds. Although, that would probably mean selling my existing ones very low and buying those ones high, so maybe the devil I know etc. etc.

I think I'll do what PMU is suggesting about assessing the performance. It would be no harm to revisit the old stats books anyway :)

Thanks again
Rebecca
 
PMU said:
A prudent investor should, each year, review the performance of her portfolio against her asset allocation strategy
Click to expand...
MissRibena said:
I think I'll do what PMU is suggesting about assessing the performance
Click to expand...
So what, in brief, is your asset allocation strategy?
now I see it would be nicer if it there was more diversification across business sectors that might allow me to have switched to green funds or commodity funds.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that "green" (?) or commodity funds might be "better"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top