# Has your equity based fund dipped by much?



## gebbel (21 Nov 2008)

I put €10K into an emerging market based equity fund one year ago. If I were to cash it in today it would be worth €4.5K. I know it's a 5 year term and always intended to meet this term. Just wondering has anyone experienced such a large loss so fast, or has anyone's fund actually increased?


----------



## ringledman (21 Nov 2008)

All funds are down. 

Emerging markets more than most which is why these are now great buys. 

You should be looking at investing more into it now at good value. Regular monthly payments are the way over investing a lump sum on a certain day.

Such funds are 10year minimum investments so you cant be worrying about 1 year's performance.


----------



## Car Mad (22 Nov 2008)

As of today mine is down 33%


----------



## chippie1974 (24 Nov 2008)

I have 4 of these funds, all well down at the moment, my property one the worst affected. Per the post above I have a reular payment into each for the last 3 years but stopped it last week. Just keeps going down 

However long term there is value there, just a matter of finding it and as again above I plan to have these for 10 years and more so hopefully this is just a blip.


----------



## Yellow Belly (24 Nov 2008)

chippie1974 said:


> I have 4 of these funds, all well down at the moment, my property one the worst affected. Per the post above I have a reular payment into each for the last 3 years but stopped it last week. Just keeps going down
> 
> However long term there is value there, just a matter of finding it and as again above I plan to have these for 10 years and more so hopefully this is just a blip.


 
"Long term there is value"- why then my friend are you stopping your regular contributions? Surely if you believe that the current unit prices offer long term value you should be doubling down rather than running away? 

Nothing in it for me to question your theory I just think you are using flawed logic.


----------



## N/SIDEPEOPLE (24 Nov 2008)

I'm making regular monthly payments into a portfolio of funds (US, UK, EUROPE, IRISH and EMERGING) for a couple of years now. It's primarily weighted in the European market. 25% of payments are going into an Irish market fund, 10% into emerging markets. There is great value in all funds (all at their lowest unit price), I have the ability to reduce or change payments.

Would anyone consider amending my 'monthly payments split' to possibly focus in on the emerging markets rather than the irish fund?


----------



## ConorP (25 Nov 2008)

what exactly is an "emerging market" stock


----------



## limerickboy1 (25 Nov 2008)

emerging market stocks are stocks in emerging economies. these economies are not developed but are developing at a rapid pace. its where the growth will probably come in the future i.e. asia, russia etc. i would be very careful though as emerging markets have fallen off a cliff recently and in my opinion the market hasnt discounted the fact that they could contract next year .


----------



## ringledman (25 Nov 2008)

limerickboy1 said:


> emerging market stocks are stocks in emerging economies. these economies are not developed but are developing at a rapid pace. its where the growth will probably come in the future i.e. asia, russia etc. i would be very careful though as emerging markets have fallen off a cliff recently and in my opinion the market hasnt discounted the fact that they could contract next year .


 
The fact that they have fallen off a cliff yet are still projecting positive growth next year make them a far better long term investment than the so called 'developed' countries. 

China is apparently in a terrible position as the press say, however growth of 9% is still likely next year although this figure is likely to fall. Russia too at 7% growth. Wouldn't the UK, US and Europe like such growth!

Price to Earnings are cheap too. Very cheap. Russia at a P/E of 4. The US is still around 12-14 P/E and this is likely to fall. Markets usually bottom around 7 P/E hence the likelihood of further falls in the Dow/S&P. 

Emerging markets may not have bottomed yet but are a damn sight better valued than the Western world. Only invest with a long term frame in mind though which is at least 10 years preferably 20 years due to the volatility and buy on a monthly basis over a lump sum investment.

I think the term developing and developed will soon dissapear. The future is Asia and Brazil. We in the Western developed economies are ageing, indebted and likely to suffer low growth over the next 10-40 years. 

The story for the 'developing' nations (terrible term) is so much more positive.


----------



## limerickboy1 (26 Nov 2008)

i wouldnt agree. the main reason asia was developing over the past years has been easy credit and lots and lots of leverage. domestic consumption there is not strong enough to maintain the econmies at all, they need massive exports. with exports falling hard these economies will crumble and the US will in the strongest position in a few yrs time


----------



## monkeyboy (26 Nov 2008)

people say to stay in for the long haul, but what is the point leaving monsy in during tremendously turbulent times ?

You can always take it out sit on it and go back in when its lower. No point sitting on it and watching it dive...Even if it drops when you go back in you will have saved something from the point of pulling out and any massive gains are usually evened out by substantial drops it seems at such turbulent times.


----------



## Raskolnikov (26 Nov 2008)

ringledman said:


> Russia at a P/E of 4.


There's a reason why Russia is so cheap. The Russian government have a nasty habit of moving in on people's investments when they can smell the profits.


----------



## limerickboy1 (26 Nov 2008)

also corruption is rife in russia. with oil at 50 bucks a barrel russia is not the tempting country it used to be


----------



## ringledman (27 Nov 2008)

limerickboy1 said:


> i wouldnt agree. the main reason asia was developing over the past years has been easy credit and lots and lots of leverage. domestic consumption there is not strong enough to maintain the econmies at all, they need massive exports. with exports falling hard these economies will crumble and the US will in the strongest position in a few yrs time


 
It depends what your time frame is. Emerging market will likely trounce the developed Western markets over the next 30 years. How can we support an ageing society without the workforce? This will impact upon the returns of Western companies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...means-a-ticking-timebomb-for-governments.html

*An ageing population means a ticking timebomb for governments*

*Like it or not we are all getting older. Not just you and me as individuals, but the populations of pretty much every country in the world. *



By Tom Stevenson
Last Updated: 10:01AM GMT 27 Nov 2008
Comments 9 | Comment on this article


Since 1950, the median age, which marks the point at which half the global population is older and half is younger, has risen from 24 to 28. The United Nations expects that by 2050, half of all people in developed countries like Britain will be over 40. 
One in every 14 people in the world today is over 65 but by the middle of the century it is likely that one in six of us will be. And don't even ask about geriatric wards like Italy and Japan, where a fifth of the population is already in retirement. This signals a profound economic and social change, with big implications for businesses and investors. I've seen the future and it's Florida. 
There's no secret about what's driving this ageing process. We are living longer and having fewer children. On top of those two long-term trends, there's another factor at play – the 20-year baby boom that followed the Second World War has distorted demographic statistics like a pig passing through a python. 
That bulge has reached a critical point now, because the first boomers are about to retire. We have reached a financial, economic and social watershed, according to John Llewellyn who has written an impressive analysis of The Business of Ageing for Nomura. "The challenges are substantial" he says, "yet curiously few companies are prepared for this." 
Ageing gets a bad press, although as the folksy title of a book I stumbled on recently puts it "Getting Old Sucks: But It Sure Beats the Alternative". Indeed, there's probably something to those annoying claims that 80 is the new 65. Studies of longevity and health show that the onset of chronic diseases is coming later in life even as our life-spans are extending. If age is measured in terms of health rather than years, then it is right to compare a 65-year-old in 1950 with an 80-year-old today. 
That fact on its own explodes a number of myths about ageing and the economy and means that the usual pessimism about demographic changes might be somewhat unfounded. It means, for example, that increasing longevity will not necessarily lead to unsustainable healthcare budgets. Yes, healthcare spending will rise because an ageing population means more people are, by definition, in their final years, in which health costs often soar. But because the additional years are generally healthy ones, longevity itself is not a problem. 
*Conventional wisdom also says that ageing populations lead to slower economic growth and stretched pension schemes.* Again there's truth in this, but likely policy changes mean it might overstate the problem. 
The UN predicts that by 2050 the working-age population in developed countries will have fallen by almost 100m from 820m today. If that were to happen, GDP growth would indeed slump below the recent average and there would be a massive rise in the tax burden on those in work or a huge fall in the real value of spending on public pensions and health. 
Neither will be politically acceptable, however, so we can expect policy-makers to encourage more of us to stay in the workplace for longer and remove incentives, such as those implicit in final salary pension schemes, for us to stop working even earlier than the official retirement age. 
When the US Social Security Program started in 1935, the retirement age was set at 65 but the average life expectancy was 61. Today, if an American woman is still alive at 65 she can expect to live for another 20 years or more, so someone soon is going to have to bite the bullet. 
If we are living longer and having to work longer (or indeed choosing to), then businesses face a challenge that few have yet grasped. The fact that everyone mentions B&Q's championing of older workers in this context shows how it is the exception not the rule. But if the proportion of over-60s in the workplace soars as predicted – from 2pc to 20pc in France, for example – then companies will face a long list of age-related issues. 
Inter alia, they will need to rethink their work schedules to meet a desire for more flexibility, develop different training programmes and rewrite their compensation schemes. It will no longer be the case that everyone retires abruptly on their peak salary. A move to part-time working and lower salaries to reflect declining productivity may become the norm. 
Spotting the companies that can grow old as gracefully as their workforces is one challenge for investors. Another will be assessing which can also rise to the challenge of ageing customers. Baby boomers represent a third of the populations of many developed countries. Against this backdrop, the cult of youth among marketers looks ever more anomalous. Especially as this is probably the first generation in history to be simultaneously old and wealthy. 
Picking the winners in this ageing world will be doubly important if, as some economists believe, *demographics provide an overall headwind for investors in developed markets. As the boomers shift their attention from accumulating assets to liquidating them in retirement, markets will find it harder to make progress than in the post-war generation's highest-earning and asset-gathering years in the 1980s and 1990s. *
*It's another reason why, this year's carnage notwithstanding, the young markets in the developing world are where the investment action will be.*


----------



## dave08 (28 Jan 2009)

My equity fund originally worth €20k has lost €12,000 in 3 years. Am worried i will lose the lot.


----------



## Sherman (29 Jan 2009)

ringledman said:


> China is apparently in a terrible position as the press say, however growth of 9% is still likely next year although this figure is likely to fall. Russia too at 7% growth. Wouldn't the UK, US and Europe like such growth!



No doubt the UK, US and Europe could get those growth rates if they too dispensed with such wasteful and inefficient ideas as elections, free press, environmental standards, labour laws, free market competition, non-rigging of currency rates, and the publishing of ahem 'creative' growth statistics.


----------



## limerick123 (29 Jan 2009)

china will not grow at anywhere next 9% this year. its possible now that it will contract.


----------



## pAnTs (29 Jan 2009)

I have not invested in an emerging market but in these two, I pay 50% into on both of these funds, 

AIB Multi Track Fund
Invests in widely diversified portfolio, which spans all major world stockmarkets and also provides exposure to Eurozone bonds.
The fund holds a portfolio of securities that provides exposure to more than 1700 companies.


AIB Managed Fund Series 2

Designed to invest in a carefully monitored portfolio of international shares, fixed interest securities, properties and cash deposits.
Profit through capital growth potential and reinvested income

Im not worried coz everyone says that now is the time to buy which is exactly what we are doing. I think the main question is when do you need the money. I had planned to cash mine in about now as they have been in for 7/8 years but I will have to wait for another 3 or 4 years at least. I am also still paying into the fund which despite my displeasure in seeing the deficit grow realise that some day the markets will recover and then I will have bought when the prices were low


----------



## dub_nerd (29 Jan 2009)

I am in an equity fund via my pension -- safe stuff, like Irish banks, construction-related companies etc. 

Fund value, after 15 years, is about two thirds of the total contributions, i.e. -33% after 15 years. At this rate I'm not sure if they'll manage to wipe me out completely by the time I retire in 20 years ... might have enough left to buy a newspaper and check the financial news.


----------



## pAnTs (29 Jan 2009)

dub_nerd said:


> I am in an equity fund via my pension -- safe stuff, like Irish banks, construction-related companies etc.
> 
> Fund value, after 15 years, is about two thirds of the total contributions, i.e. -33% after 15 years. At this rate I'm not sure if they'll manage to wipe me out completely by the time I retire in 20 years ... might have enough left to buy a newspaper and check the financial news.


 
Crickey das ist nicht gut!!! at least you've got 20 years for them to recover, it's the people retiring now I feel sorry for


----------



## dub_nerd (29 Jan 2009)

Yes pAnTs, you are right, there are people a lot worse off. In any case I am saving some cash for a rainy day. I expect the government will wipe that out through inflationary policies over the next few years too. I suppose it'll soon be time to think about buying some property again. It kinda feels like leaping from the roof of one burning building onto another at times.


----------



## pAnTs (29 Jan 2009)

ye Im gonna try and forget about it for another few years coz watching it nose dive is bad for the nerves especially when your still lodging money in!!!!


----------

