# worlds best funds and managers



## joe sod (13 Dec 2011)

i was having a look around to find out what are the best performing funds over fairly long periods of time, from the gurufocus website, i found donald yachtman  
and the yachtmann fund , also bill nygren with the oak mark fund, does any one have good ideas and what are the best funds


----------



## ringledman (13 Dec 2011)

In the UK I would say Neil Woodford has an excellent record over the last decade or so. His funds are up approx 300% in the last decade.

A proper contrarian and value based investor who doesn't mind going against the majority closet active managers.

A highly focused portfolio of cash rich, value based dividend plays. And he called the trash of the banks perfectly a year ago.


----------



## Marc (13 Dec 2011)

Alpha is the excess return above a risk appropriate benchmark return that a fund manager might achieve over a period of time.

The three key factors at play here are; the average excess return achieved, the variability of the excess return above the benchmark and the number of years of data in a given study.
For any fund we can determine if a series of historical returns is reliably superior to a risk-equivalent benchmark by applying a t-test.

The t-test was introduced in 1908 by William Sealy Gosset while working for the Guinness brewery in Dublin to evaluate the quality of the brewery’s ingredients.
In investing, the t-test can be used to determine whether any market beating returns are due to luck or skill. When we apply a t-test to the historical performance we get a statistical feel for how significant the results are.

A result from a t-test in excess of 2 is widely accepted to be a measure of statistical significance.

When we apply a t-test to the results of any particular fund we should always start with a "null hypothesis" that is to say that we don't believe a fund manager has any skill and we should set out to statistically attempt to disprove this proposition.

Here is the difficulty with this process. At any given time we have the existing track record of any given fund manager, the average excess performance he has achieved and we can measure the volatility of that excess performance compared to a risk appropriate benchmark. But the limiting factor here is the career of the fund manager. We actually don’t get that many observations of their decisions.
In another post, I recently pointed out that if I flick a coin 5 times and it comes up heads 5 times, there is a 3% chance that will happen just by luck. So, by the same token, 5 years of performance for a fund manager isn’t sufficient time for us to say with a high enough degree of confidence that here is the “Tiger Woods of fund management”.

We need at least 30 or 40 years of data to show statistically that, yes this fund manager has real skill above the market, allowing for the risks taken, and the persistency of the results is consistent enough to believe that they are really skilled.

So, what do we do if we only have say 5 or 10 years of results for a fund?

Well, we know the average returns, we know the benchmark and we can calculate the variability of the alpha. So, we can extrapolate how many years of results we would need to achieve a statistically significant t-statistic. In other words how long we would have to watch the fund manager to be able to say, yes this guy has real skill and it isn’t just luck so it’s ok to invest here.
So, turning to the fund mentioned in the initial post. It just so happens that our friends in Orange County California have looked at this exact question for this exact fund. Their findings:


“_Two funds that have recently received attention from the financial media are the Yacktman Fund and the Yacktman Focused Fund, both managed by Donald and Stephen and Yacktman. From the average alpha and variability of the alpha, we have calculated that we would need 105 years of similar returns to conclude the presence of skill. For the Yacktman Focused Fund vs. the Russell 1000 Value Index, the average alpha was -1.10%, so there is no number of possible years to conclude the existence of skill._”

So, there is no evidence of skill in these funds that would lead us to believe that we should invest our capital in them. We might be willing to wait 105 years just on the off-chance that we are wrong, but of course by then we will all be long dead. 

The conclusion reached time and time again. When you correctly account for the risks taken MOST fund managers do not have any independently verifiable skill, and those that might do not appear to have enough skill to compensate for their costs.

It might be the case that a fund manager picked at random (and believe me speaking as someone who spent the first 10 years of their career actually doing this, picking fund managers at random is all you are really doing here) will turn out to beat the market. But I can’t be sure before I invest TODAY that that is going to be the case in the FUTURE, as I almost never have enough of a track record to be able to make that call.

By the time a fund manager’s skill comes to light, it is basicially too late for anyone to profit from it now. Think about Anthony Bolton at Fidelity. He had an amazing track record. But I have asked literally thousands of investors over the years if they invested in the Fidelity Special Situations fund at the start back in 1979 or 1980 or 1981. Never met a single one! By the time I was advising clients in the early 1990s Anthony Bolton was coming up on retirement!

I have also met Neil Woodford on many occasions when I worked in the UK. He was nearly sacked by Invesco Perpetual for refusing to buy Tech stocks in the late 1990s as his value driven Income fund significantly underperformed.

Once again, we need to correctly account for the sources of his returns by applying a multi-factor analysis (sensititvity to the UK Market, sensitivity to small vs large companies and sensitivity to value vs growth). He is a value investor so what I want to know is how much alpha does he generate over and above a UK Value index, and secondly is it enough to compensate for the higher fees and expenses of running an actively managed fund? Finally, as the fund grows, is it possible for the excess performance to persist? Again, all the evidence suggests that it simply isn't possible to do this - although arguments rage over why.

Remember our capital – very plentiful. Skilled fund managers – thin on the ground.

A central tenant of economics is the scarce resource captures the rent! In this scenario if there is any skill on the table it is the fund managers who profit not the investors.


----------



## ringledman (13 Dec 2011)

Marc, you can buy Woodfords Edinburgh Investment Trust at a TER of 0.6%. How does that compare to your index funds?

The type of fund manager I want is the one who avoided following the herd in the tech bubble and subsequent collapse. 

How about we continue the discussion of the best performing funds/managers and let posters decide on the rights and wrongs of active management?


----------



## Marc (13 Dec 2011)

Ringledman,

Did you actually _read_ my post? Just a suggestion but if you do, you might actually learn something.


For starters:

The TER of the Edinburgh Investment Trust plc is NOT 0.6%pa. That is the annual management charge, and the fund is subject to a performance fee. (see my earlier point about the scarce resource captures the rent)

From trustnet:
Invesco Perpetual is entitled to a management fee which will be 0.6% of the Funds market capitalisation. If the NAV (with debt at par) out-performs the FTSE All-Share Index (Total Return) by 1.25% per annum on a three year rolling basis, Invesco Perpetual will additionally receive a performance fee of *15%* of the amount of the above-target out-performance, up to a maximum of 1% of net assets in any one year. The management agreement provides for three months notice of termination, subject to a minimum initial period of 12 months.

This means that the annual management charge can rise to as much as 1.6%pa and therefore it is completely impossible for the TER to be 0.6%.

How about we continue to learn, understand and debate?


----------



## Marc (13 Dec 2011)

Oh and just for the record, the audited TER on the UK Value fund that I personally hold in my own pension is 0.59%.


----------



## ringledman (14 Dec 2011)

Marc it would be nice to have a discussion that doesn't automatically lead to the merits of active v passive, EMH, the meaning of risk, etc. I promise to not discuss the secular bear market in western indicies.

How about we let posters form their own opinions on the merits of each.

Thanks for correcting my thoughts on the TER. Woodford's stance on various defensive sectors aligns closely with mine hence why I am happy to hold for the long term. Many may disagree but I believe his value approach is less risky and produces a more consistent return than closet managers or the index which I see as containing a lot of overvalued trash.

So back on track, which other funds have outperformed and what approach did they take?


----------



## joe sod (14 Dec 2011)

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/123492/which-gurus-had-positive-returns-from-2008-to-2010

it was reading this article that sparked my interest in this topic, obviously some funds like yacktmans had stellar returns in the last few years and it is impossible to maintain this return over long periods, thanks for the replies i will look at the other funds recommended, i was really just looking for other peoples ideas on funds. Overall though im finding this time very difficult to judge what to invest in, so much depends on decisions ( or indecision) by governments and central banks.


----------



## seantheman (14 Dec 2011)

ringledman said:


> The type of fund manager I want is the one who avoided following the herd in the tech bubble and subsequent collapse.


 
Surely there were fund managers who bought into the Tech,Property,Banking sectors on the rise and bailed out in time?
That's the type of guy i would like


----------



## Marc (15 Dec 2011)

Ok, I sold my house at the end of 2007 for the asking price. I switched out of Sterling just before it tanked 20% and I sold all my equities at the end of 2007 and switched to cash. Then i switched out of a defined benefit scheme with an employer that no longer exists as it was a victim of the credit crunch.

In 2008 the only assets i owned were my car, cash and some gold which I switched into mostly emerging market equities and value stocks in December 2008.

So by most people's measure I am a skilled fund manager and I can trade on this record for the rest of career.

Here's the last fact you need to determine if that is the case. All that only happened because I was getting married and moved to Ireland. So the skill in my market timing strategy was 100% due to a skiing trip in France and had nothing at all to do with my ability or otherwise to make great market timing decisions. Nobody should pay me on the basis of my track record because it's not due to skill. 

So before you give your hard earned to some star manager who called it right in the past ask yourself this was it just luck?


----------



## joe sod (15 Dec 2011)

so then are you saying you should just pick your own stocks, or that you should not invest at all in the market. Like everything in life some people are skilled at managing money and therefore are worth investing money with,


----------



## Marc (15 Dec 2011)

In "winning the losers game", Charles Ellis points our that unlike other pursuits like say Tennis or Golf when it comes to investing, then training, practice and experience is not an advantage.

If it were the case then we would see "skilled" fund managers able to lose on purpose. In fact we see very few managers who are able to take losing positions on purpose suggesting that once again the winning positions are much more likely to be as a result of luck and not skill.

In order to have a successful investment experience you don't need to find a skilled fund manager you just need to buy the market.


----------



## ringledman (16 Dec 2011)

seantheman said:


> Surely there were fund managers who bought into the Tech,Property,Banking sectors on the rise and bailed out in time?
> That's the type of guy i would like


 
I would like to know who if anyone did this and how they judged bailing out (P/E or yield analysis). 

Buffett refused to get involved in the tech bubble and stood firm in his approach. Woodford likewise. Personally I look for asset managers who align with my investment philosophy and don't simply buy the market and churn stocks. 

As a long term investor I would rather consistent returns through taking a value and high dividend approach than ride the speculative nature of the market.


----------



## Rory Gillen (20 Dec 2011)

There is never just one answer and it is a pity that responses to questions raised on this website descend into arguments. I would be more interested in other views if they were simply stated and left. 

I, too, have a lot of time for Neil Woodford and the Edinburgh Investment Trust is a fine fund. And I see no reason why I would not consider ETFs where a good fund manager can't be identified. Yes, it may be difficult to find good fund managers and mostly Marc's comment that few fund managers add value on a 5-10 year view have been proven to be correct time and time again. 

But if I'm not mistaken I believe Ringledman's point is that he (assumption) is more concerned about risk control, and he is attracted by Neil Woodford's fund for that reason - the Edinburgh Investment Trust is positioned defensively as the fund manager is bearish in general and believes a secure and high income is a worthy goal at this point in markets. He owns defensive high yielding stocks in the UK market that are in general not correlated to the economy. I, too, own the Edinburgh Investment Trust for that reason.

The real difficulty is trumpeting ETFs over actively managed funds is that 'Fundamental' or 'Intelligent' ETFs, which passively invest in indices that have a modest value-edge out-perform traditional ETFs, which track market capitalisation-weighted indexes, by circa 2% per annum. That, to me, is proof that you can have your cake and eat it also. Passive funds but with a value-tilt that delivers out-performance, albeit modestly so. So if value is no use as an approach, aka Neil Woodford, how does one square the fact that 'Intelligent' ETFs beat the traditional ETFs? It has to be that they offer a value-bias. 

That may be a line of reasoning that many will struggle to follow but I have no other way of making the most fundamental of points. 

If anyone on this website would like a Free copy of my research note on Intelligent ETFs then just email me to r.gillen@gillenmarkets.com 


*Rory Gillen*


----------



## rob67 (3 Feb 2012)

*momentum trading funds*

Merryn Somerset Webb   saltydoginvestor.


Merryn SW financialtimescom wrote about  momentum investing using funds recently. She referred specifically to to Saltydoginvestor site.  They recommend  using UK fund supermarkets to buy and sell funds as cheaply as possible. Is it possible to do this from Ireland?


----------



## rob67 (6 Feb 2012)

To answer my own question, apparently you can. I emailed two of them, despite the unpromising notice on their web sites e.g. 
“The information on this site is intended solely for the use of those people who are United Kingdom residents for tax and investment purposes. It is not for distribution in any other jurisdiction, including the United States of America. Anyone who is not a UK resident should not continue with this site unless wishing to read about personal finances available to UK residents for informational purposes only. “ They replied that they could accept business from European Economic Area but that they can't send marketing material overseas.


----------



## joe sod (17 Jan 2022)

ringledman said:


> In the UK I would say Neil Woodford has an excellent record over the last decade or so. His funds are up approx 300% in the last decade.


I know this is a very old thread that pre dated Neil Woodfords fall still it is interesting to see how he was viewed back then with the stellar performance of his funds through the financial crash of 2008.
Is Cathie Wood of Ark Invest now the new Neil Woodford she had a stellar 2020 and sailed through the Corona virus panic because most of her investments were in the highly speculative technology end of the market which benefited enormously from the Covid lockdowns. Now that interest rates are rising and inflation is on a tear her technology stocks have cratered and there are now big outflows from her funds which have really accelerated into 2022.


----------



## Marc (17 Jan 2022)

Wow I’d forgotten about this. Interesting to see Rory Gillen defending the now disgraced Neil Woodford


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Jan 2022)

Hi Marc 

Rory Gillen was not alone. The world and his mother promoted Neil Woodford.  In the same way as they promote other star investors like Warren Buffet. 

At one stage, I think New Ireland had a long stellar record that people said couldn't be by chance.  But the guys left and the performance reverted to the average. 

Neil Woodford was an odd case. He was a great fund manager but got ahead of himself. Very sad. Had he stuck to what he knew best, he would be still doing well. 

But it does underline why low cost passive investing is the the best way.

Brendan


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jan 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> At one stage, I think New Ireland had a long stellar record that people said couldn't be by chance.  But the guys left and the performance reverted to the average.


So, in that case, it *was* down to the individuals who left?


----------



## RickyJ (20 Jan 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Marc
> 
> Rory Gillen was not alone. The world and his mother promoted Neil Woodford.  In the same way as they promote other star investors like Warren Buffet.
> 
> ...


Hi Brendan,

Do you mean funds such as ETF’s that track S&P 500, as an example? Can these funds be joined directly or does it make more sense to go through a broker?

Thanks,
Ricky


----------



## ClubMan (20 Jan 2022)

The tax treatment of ETFs in Ireland is very unattractive.
Deemed disposal every 8 years, income tax 41% on gains etc.

Edit: corrected tax treatment.


----------



## RickyJ (20 Jan 2022)

ClubMan said:


> The tax treatment of ETFs in Ireland is very unattractive.
> Deemed disposal every 8 years, income tax on gains etc.


Are they not the same as most managed saving and life assurance policies such as those provided by Irish Life and Zurich, etc. e.g. MAPS and Prisma funds, in terms of income tax and deemed disposal every 8 years? I have read before that they are not attractive from a tax treatment point of view but I can’t seem to find anything else that would be, apart from maybe buying and selling shares. 
I was interested in Brendan’s point about low cost passive investing. I thought buying into funds that track certain indices would be a way of doing this. I thought the only way of doing this was through ETFs.


----------



## ClubMan (20 Jan 2022)

RickyJ said:


> Are they not the same as most managed saving and life assurance policies such as those provided by Irish Life and Zurich, etc. e.g. MAPS and Prisma funds, in terms of income tax and deemed disposal every 8 years?


Yes. Which is why they are also much less attractive than investing directly in an appropriately assembled and diversified (have to be careful in case Marc is reading!  ) basket of shares.


----------



## RickyJ (21 Jan 2022)

ClubMan said:


> Yes. Which is why they are also much less attractive than investing directly in an appropriately assembled and diversified (have to be careful in case Marc is reading!  ) basket of shares.


Am I right in saying the only way to invest in such a basket of shares is through a stock broker? If you are someone who wouldn’t have a clue how to choose between one share and another, I would guess this option would be expensive because you would have significant fees for the brokers expertise? Do you think it would still be a better option when you take into consideration paying the broker to bed and breakfast the shares if applicable every year? Apologies if I am asking questions that you may not know all the answers for. Possibly amount to be invested would be  €20,000 - €30,000. Alternatively, may also consider investing €1,000 per month to spread the risk, over 5 years.


----------



## bankrupt (21 Jan 2022)

RickyJ said:


> I was interested in Brendan’s point about low cost passive investing. I thought buying into funds that track certain indices would be a way of doing this. I thought the only way of doing this was through ETFs.



There are plenty of passive funds that you can buy as part of a pension etc. in Ireland (or anywhere).  The problem is that you then pay an annual fee for someone to administer that fund - I would argue that those fees generally represent terrible value for money as even a novice investor could manage a couple of ETFs themselves and achieve excellent diversification and low risk.  Over the long term what may seem like very small fee %s really take a huge chunk out of your savings.  Unfortunately in Ireland it's not really practical (although not impossible) to do this yourself with ETFs because the tax treatment is so ill thought-out (or maybe it is exactly as intended?)


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Jan 2022)

My parents have an equity portfolio that’s looked-after by one of the wealth managers.

They pay an annual management fee of 0.75%.

I think it represents good value.

I also think it’s a hell of a lot better than trying to do it themselves, i.e. being penny-wise and pound-foolish.


----------



## bankrupt (21 Jan 2022)

Gordon Gekko said:


> My parents have an equity portfolio that’s looked-after by one of the wealth managers.
> 
> They pay an annual management fee of 0.75%.
> 
> ...


What might be interesting to know is how well their portfolio has actually performed against the same amount invested in (for example) a SP500 ETF over the same period.  That's the real indication of good value.  I hope they beat the market but chances are they did not and particularly when you take the fees into account the chances are that it underperformed.  

When you consider that 0.75% fee over the lifetime of a typical investment (decades) it is definitely not a case of being penny-wise - the number of pounds potentially lost can be shockingly massive - it certainly shocked me when I did the sums myself.  The point is also that in other countries it really is practical for someone to manage ETF investment themselves, it is not complicated at all, the sad reality of most portfolios is that you are paying fees for worse performance than you might be able to achieve yourself.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Jan 2022)

bankrupt said:


> What might be interesting to know is how well their portfolio has actually performed against the same amount invested in (for example) a SP500 ETF over the same period.  That's the real indication of good value.  I hope they beat the market but chances are they did not and particularly when you take the fees into account the chances are that it underperformed.
> 
> When you consider that 0.75% fee over the lifetime of a typical investment (decades) it is definitely not a case of being penny-wise - the number of pounds potentially lost can be shockingly massive - it certainly shocked me when I did the sums myself.  The point is also that in other countries it really is practical for someone to manage ETF investment themselves, it is not complicated at all, the sad reality of most portfolios is that you are paying fees for worse performance than you might be able to achieve yourself.


I’m sorry, but this is utter nonsense.

The S&P500 is US!

I’ll tell you exactly how it did…my understanding is that global stocks did circa 30% last year in Euro terms and their portfolio did 32% net of fees.


----------



## MrEarl (22 Jan 2022)

Another option might be to consider investing in the likes of Berkshire Hathaway.  Granted, its US$ exposure, but you can invest directly, hold as long as you wish, get a reasonable amount of diversification, while apart benefiting from professional expertise etc.

While I think that I understand the point that *bankrupt* is trying to make, I'm inclined to agree with Gordon. When push comes to shove,  professionals tend to do a better job than amateurs, hence they exist and get paid.

The age old arguement about most active investment managers not being able to match, not alone beat the S&P500, is important to note, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.


----------



## SPC100 (22 Jan 2022)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I’m sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
> 
> The S&P500 is US!
> 
> I’ll tell you exactly how it did…my understanding is that global stocks did circa 30% last year in Euro terms and their portfolio did 32% net of fees.


Gordon, that's really interesting. And a great result. Thanks for sharing. Would you be willing to detail a bit what their portfolio is invested in? And if there are any / many changes in what it was invested in?

I think it would be interesting as it's own thread! - sample wealth manager portfolio. Even more interesting if we know what the brief to the wealth manager was for the portfolio.


----------



## SPC100 (22 Jan 2022)

Marc said:


> Wow I’d forgotten about this. Interesting to see Rory Gillen defending the now disgraced Neil Woodford



I think that's overstating his position here? The points I took from rereading his post from 11 years ago:

He acknowledged that it's proven that fund manager skill doesn't exist.

He asserts a passive value-tilt premium exists (existed?). Although he didn't mention small value!

I think we agree these are facts.

He did indicate he thinks rare fund manager skill exists (partial fact e.g. Buffet).

He implied Woodford had it, and he said he liked a particular investment philosophy and was invested with him as he was executing that.

I didn't know about the scandal. Skimming a summary, most investors got 80p.c back. The fund imploded due to investors stampeding out if it and not having enough liquidity to pay them. He may have had more than was allowed invested in unquoted firms? maybe his plays would have worked out if rug wasn't pulled out?


----------



## bankrupt (22 Jan 2022)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I’m sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
> 
> The S&P500 is US!
> 
> I’ll tell you exactly how it did…my understanding is that global stocks did circa 30% last year in Euro terms and their portfolio did 32% net of fees.


That's a strange answer.  I used the SP500 as an example as it's so commonly considered a benchmark and often held as an ETF (VOO for example) but using ETFs you can track essentially any index worldwide (and plenty of other asset classes including property, gold etc).   As an investor I do not care exactly where the underlying assets are although I may prefer to avoid currency risk and take Euro-denominated ETFs only for example.  Are you saying that an Irish investor should seek to exclude US assets from their portfolio for some reason?

You also mention only 1 year term - this is not what most people should consider who will rather think in terms of decades of investment, this is the real key.  If you can find a fund that beats the market consistently over decades then great, go with it but that's not the reality for the vast majority and there is a simple alternative.  The last year has been extraordinary for gains, maybe the next few will not be so kind to us, then we will see whether Buffet's old saw about naked swimmers holds true perhaps.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (22 Jan 2022)

I think the point that’s being missed, and one that’s often made by Sarenco, is that the regular punter can’t buy a US ETF that’s subject to CGT without going through a fund manager.

Yes, most active managers underperform, but the equity portfolio I referenced is bound to outperform my own half-baked ideas.

Hire professionals and leave them at it.

In terms of what’s in the portfolio, I think there are about 30 or 40 holdings, mostly direct equities with a couple of cheap ETFs (S&P500 maybe and US financials possibly), think there’s an Emerging Markets Investment Trust in there, Scottish Mortgage Trust is in there as well). In terms of the individual equities, the FAANGs you’d expect to see, I think ING is in there, Ryanair is the only Irish stock (I think), Heineken is there, LVMH, from memory Berkshire…stuff like that.


----------



## bankrupt (22 Jan 2022)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I think the point that’s being missed, and one that’s often made by Sarenco, is that the regular punter can’t buy a US ETF that’s subject to CGT without going through a fund manager.


This is true and I've made the same point elsewhere myself on AAM - the tax situation for ETFs in Ireland at the moment works contrary to the best interests of investors (to put it mildly).  I hope that will change.  I think my general point is valid however, as an individual investor I would still seek out the lowest-cost, tax-efficient passive investing options available and do my best to bypass professional portfolio managers.  In future when it is practical for an ordinary investor to hold ETFs directly it really will be possible to do all of this yourself (perhaps there will be the equivalent of the UK ISA for example?).  I have no opposition to paying for expertise but the sad reality is that time and again the experts lose to simple passive fund investing and that is something we should be all easily able to handle ourselves (and a reasonable tax scheme should encourage this in my opinion).


----------



## SPC100 (22 Jan 2022)

Thanks for details Gordon. I wondered was it closet passive investing. But it doesn't sound like it from your list.


----------



## Horatio (22 Jan 2022)

joe sod said:


> i was having a look around to find out what are the best performing funds over fairly long periods of time, from the gurufocus website, i found donald yachtman
> and the yachtmann fund , also bill nygren with the oak mark fund, does any one have good ideas and what are the best funds


I don't know either of those.
I favor Terry Smith and his Fundsmith fund. 
The fund itself is only around Since 2014 if I remember correctly but Terry Smith himself has a long and esteemed pedigree in fund management including Tuttle Prebon ( spelling?) and Barclays bank.

He has a fairly simple principle for selection and is based g on holding long or " do nothing" as he describes it.

The fund component turnover is very low.
The returns to date have been excellent in my observation.

Links to follow...


----------



## Horatio (22 Jan 2022)

hmm couldn't post a link it may be against forum rules. Anyway just Google Terry Smith.

I have no affiliation other than being satisfied investor.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Jan 2022)

I presume it's this? Just in case anybody searches and gets a scam site..








						Fundsmith | Home
					

Fundsmith is focused on delivering superior investment performance at a reasonable cost. It was established to be different from its peers so as to achieve a different result in line with Sir John Templeton’s axiom that “If you want to have a better performance than the crowd, you must do things...




					www.fundsmith.co.uk


----------

