That is one of the conditions for those who are required to fill in Tax Returns. Another is rather more important, effectively do you have CGT to pay!JohnB wrote: ... If this means the sale is less than 4*allowance (£49200) they won't even need to mention it on their tax return. ...
Perhaps because the OP says "... I am thinking ...what would be the best approach?" followed by " ... I'm thinking ...diversify into some sort of index tracker..."JohnB wrote:
Gawd knows why people mention active funds when the O/P has decided on trackers.
!Thanks Sounds like a sensible approach.chris wrote:I think that if I was in your position and was looking long-term, I would take a risk and gradually diversify. However, if it was a different share or my timescale was shorter, then I think I would go for it. It depends on a variety of things, including the capital gain tied up in the shares (which dictates the timescale over which this can be done).It is GSK shares. I just googled spreadbetting and now have a headache
Chris
I quoted share price, which indicates that dividend income was excluded. That would not be the case for an index tracker in accumulation form.Bubblesofearth wrote:Your illustration shows that an IT with a Global spread would have beaten a FTSE 100 tracker so you were comparing apples and oranges. It does not demonstrate IT's are better investment vehicles than trackers.tjh290633 wrote:
To illustrate that trackers can only follow the market. Also that there are better investments available.
TJH
If you want to make a more realistic comparison then you need to select a more realistic benchmark. Maybe a Global tracker? The FTSE has been a pretty poor cousin to most major markets over the past 20 years.
You also need to make sure dividend income is excluded or reinvested for both vehicles.
Making IT vs tracker comparisons is a worthwhile exercise but some care needs to go into selection criteria.
BoE
I was merely pointing out to the OP that he has to beware of trackers.Witan’s benchmark is a composite of 85% Global (MSCI All Country World Index) and 15% UK (MSCI UK IMI Index).
Not wanting to prolong the agony here but maybe you could have compared Witan with the benchmark provided rather than the FTSE 100? What does that comparison look like and would it still prompt you to 'beware of trackers'? And does it take into account any leverage employed by Witan which will increase risk?tjh290633 wrote:
There are trackers and trackers. Witan has currently a mix of two indexes as its benchmark, taken from its latest factsheet:I was merely pointing out to the OP that he has to beware of trackers.Witan’s benchmark is a composite of 85% Global (MSCI All Country World Index) and 15% UK (MSCI UK IMI Index).
TJH
You can see that if you look at their key features document. https://www.witan.com/media/1662/witan- ... -final.pdfBubblesofearth wrote: Not wanting to prolong the agony here but maybe you could have compared Witan with the benchmark provided rather than the FTSE 100? What does that comparison look like and would it still prompt you to 'beware of trackers'? And does it take into account any leverage employed by Witan which will increase risk?
BoE
Thanks. It seems, eyeballing the chart on page 2, that the benchmark has done better over the 5 year period reported.tjh290633 wrote: You can see that if you look at their key features document. https://www.witan.com/media/1662/witan- ... -final.pdf
TJH
Only in the last 12 months, according to the latest copy that I have. They were level pegging a year ago and marginally ahead up til then.Bubblesofearth wrote:Thanks. It seems, eyeballing the chart on page 2, that the benchmark has done better over the 5 year period reported.tjh290633 wrote: You can see that if you look at their key features document. https://www.witan.com/media/1662/witan- ... -final.pdf
TJH
Maybe 'beware of IT's' is an appropriate message??
BoE
OK, for the sake of argument let's say there is little difference between them. And it seems we can now agree on the appropriate benchmark for Witan, i.e. that used by the firm itself. Given that, can you see how comparing Witans performance to a FTSE100 tacker is apples and oranges? And therefore how the conclusion 'beware of trackers, there are better investment opportunities' should not be drawn from such a comparison?tjh290633 wrote:
Only in the last 12 months, according to the latest copy that I have. They were level pegging a year ago and marginally ahead up til then.
TJH
If you prefer, you can compare one index with another. Bear in mind that trackers can only ever underperform their index.Bubblesofearth wrote:can you see how comparing Witans performance to a FTSE100 tacker is apples and oranges? And therefore how the conclusion 'beware of trackers, there are better investment opportunities' should not be drawn from such a comparison?
BoE
It's not a question of what I prefer. You compared Witan's performance to that of the FTSE 100 and drew the conclusion that one should beware of trackers. It seems to me that you are not prepared to admit that was an error of logic so I think we'll leave it there.tjh290633 wrote:If you prefer, you can compare one index with another. Bear in mind that trackers can only ever underperform their index.Bubblesofearth wrote:can you see how comparing Witans performance to a FTSE100 tacker is apples and oranges? And therefore how the conclusion 'beware of trackers, there are better investment opportunities' should not be drawn from such a comparison?
BoE
TJH
Surely as a whole active instruments can only ever underperform by an even greater amount by "virtue" of their greater fees?tjh290633 wrote:Bear in mind that trackers can only ever underperform their index.
TJH
No. Some actively managed investments can outperform their appropriate index or market. A lot do underperform, but if you look at the whole market as individual shares, some will underperform and some will out perform. From year to year, last year's underperformers may be this year's outperformers.xeny wrote:Surely as a whole active instruments can only ever underperform by an even greater amount by "virtue" of their greater fees?tjh290633 wrote:Bear in mind that trackers can only ever underperform their index.
TJH
Epic Change Yield WMH 42.74% 0.00% KGF 24.47% 0.00% ADM 24.08% 5.15% RIO 23.07% 5.36% BHP 9.21% 4.73% RB. 6.77% 2.67% PSON 3.96% 2.94% S32 3.67% 1.69% SGRO 1.29% 2.34% AZN 1.12% 2.81% SSE 0.42% 5.54% ULVR 0.29% 3.33% IMI -0.42% 2.87% UU. -1.23% 4.59% SMDS -3.12% 3.22% PHP -4.61% 4.07% DGE -6.45% 2.33% NG. -6.72% 5.56% VOD -10.62% 6.19% BATS -10.71% 7.29% BA. -10.76% 4.60% TSCO -11.32% 4.29% TATE -14.52% 4.56% IMB -16.32% 8.80% LGEN -17.85% 7.06% TW. -18.95% 0.00% GSK -21.71% 5.74% CPG -23.33% 0.00% AV. -23.50% 6.56% BLND -24.51% 3.48% BT.A -30.21% 0.00% MKS -36.89% 0.00% RDSB -41.53% 3.82% BP. -42.80% 7.50% LLOY -42.83% 0.00% MARS -45.99% 0.00% Av.Chg -9.05% 3.59%In fact my portfolio has fallen by just over 6%, but that does include reinvested income. In the last financial year, my costs were 0.09% of the value of my portfolio at 5th April 2020. Costs were 1.25% of my dividend income. Were I to be investing in collective investments the costs would be considerably higher. From https://www.janushenderson.com/en-gb/in ... trust-plc/ I see that for City of London IT the annual management charge is 0.325% of net assets. It will have other charges, and the OCF is quoted as 0.39%, some 4 times my costs.