Buy British, Buy The World

Published in Investing on 11 January 2010

If you want to invest globally, invest in the FTSE.

If you listen to financial advisors or read much of the financial press out there, you'll often come across exhortations to diversify your portfolio, spreading your money across different markets around the world.

To achieve that, investment companies offer a bewildering array of global funds -- US, China, emerging markets, or whatever. Of course, all those foreign stock exchanges, companies, and accounting practices need more expertise to unravel, and so the funds have to levy high charges to pay for the required experts.

But what if we were to tell you of a simple UK-based fund, investing in a well-diversified range of companies that earn most of their money globally, and which you could have for an annual charge of less than 1%?

A truly global investment

How about if we tell you that the companies in the fund make more profit from Europe and the US than from the UK, that a full 83% of their profits are generated from outside the UK, and that half of its top flight companies earn hardly anything from the UK at all? 

If that's not enough, what if we told you that some of its profits also come from Scandinavia, South America, Eastern Europe, India, the Far East, China, and other such far-flung places?

We bet that sounds like the kind of globally diversified investment that would suit you.

So what is this fund? You're probably getting close to working out that we're talking about a FTSE tracker fund. The attractions of the London Stock Exchange (the LSE) -- its regulatory regime, its transparency, its costs, etc -- make it the home to a large number of truly global companies.

Great global companies

As an example, BP Group (LSE: BP), a FTSE 100 company valued at over £100bn, is one of the world's major players in the oil and gas industry. But though listed in London, it generates only about 25% of its turnover and around 17% of its profits from the UK. Over half of its profits come from the "rest of the world", which is everywhere bar the US, UK and Europe.

Then there's fellow oil and gas giant Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSB), for whom Europe contributes about half of its turnover and the US about a quarter, with the final quarter coming from that same old place again - the rest of the world.

And if we look closely at British American Tobacco (LSE: BATS), with a turnover in excess of £12bn a year, we find that it sells precisely none of its brands here in the UK.

The telecoms business is similar too, with leading mobile telephone operator Vodafone (LSE: VOD), which last year made profits in excess of £10bn, doing just 13% of its business in the UK, with 59% coming from the rest of Europe, and the remaining 28% from elsewhere around the world.

Want some Scandinavian exposure? How about the Anglo-Swedish AstraZeneca (LSE: AZN) then? Sales in the UK contributed only 6% to its turnover last year, with the Americas making up 50%.

Further-flung places

Or would you prefer some South American action? Try the Chilean mining giant Antofagasta (LSE: ANTO), with turnover in excess of £2bn and valued at £10bn. Or if its the antipodes you're after, the Australian miner BHP Billiton (LSE: BLT), with more than 60% of its turnover coming from the Asia-Pacific region, should fit the bill nicely.

And for more exotic sources of profits, there are companies like Cairn Energy (LSE: CNE), which makes all of its money in India and Bangladesh, or the African insurer, Old Mutual (LSE: OML).

83% overseas

In fact, of the £144bn in profits made by London-listed blue-chip companies last year, more than £120bn came from outside the UK, with some companies engaging in so little business in the UK that they classify it under Rest of the World.

This all goes to show what a waste of time it is following the FTSE to give you some idea of the performance of the UK economy -- in fact, between the last quarter of 2008 and the third quarter of 2009 when the UK economy contracted 5%, the FTSE 100 index rose 18%.

And it also shows why you don't need to pay high prices for fancy global investment funds, when there are great low cost FTSE trackers here on our doorstep.

More from Alan Oscroft

We're looking for the best UK-listed shares for our £50,000 real-money portfolio in Champion Shares PRO. We will soon be accepting new members for a strictly limited period of time. Register your interest here and you'll be alerted the instant we re-open.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

BarrenFluffit 12 Jan 2010 , 8:46am

This illustrates the weakness of investing in company's as national entities; large businesses in a trading world are exposed to global business related risks.

TMFBoing 12 Jan 2010 , 9:11am

Indeed - they're exposed to both global opportunities and global risk.

Alan O
TMFBoing

dinky79 12 Jan 2010 , 12:59pm

Given the turn of the decade has just highlighted how poorly FTSE trackers have done over the last 10 years (compared with managed funds during the same period), i thought Motley Fool would've let this one go by now.

Kickero 12 Jan 2010 , 1:30pm

I'd add HSBC to the list as they're focused on a strategy that's emerging markets-led and financing-focused.

retiredhooray 12 Jan 2010 , 2:15pm

So which is better? The FTSE 100 or 250?

TMFBoing 12 Jan 2010 , 4:10pm

So which is better? The FTSE 100 or 250?

For global exposure, I'd go for the FTSE-100 myself, as it vastly outweighs the total market cap of the FTSE-250 and contains so many of the world's biggest and best companies (In fact, I think the FSTE-100 accounts for about 80% of the whole FTSE All Share index).

Foolish best,
Alan O
TMFBoing

Iniq 12 Jan 2010 , 4:28pm

Quote:

" ... how poorly FTSE trackers have done over the last 10 years (compared with managed funds during the same period),"

Have they? Really? Which managed funds are you comparing them with? The sucessful ones? Dur ...

So would you care to tell us NOW (not retrospectively, in ten years time) which managed funds are likely to beat FTSE trackers over the next ten years?

TMFBoing 12 Jan 2010 , 4:31pm

Hi dinky79,

Given the turn of the decade has just highlighted how poorly FTSE trackers have done over the last 10 years (compared with managed funds during the same period), i thought Motley Fool would've let this one go by now

Well, some managed funds did well, but by no means all.

But yes, the FTSE will have bad decades occasionally, and we have pointed that out many times over the past years when we have discussed the long term performance of stock markets (particularly when we have examined each year's Barclays Capital Equity-Gilt Study).

As it happens, we have just had one of the worst decades for shares ever, but that doesn't mean that shares are not the best long-term investment, nor that a tracker is not the most cost-effective kind of fund and not likely to beat the majority of managed funds over the long term.

Let's be clear - there will be times ahead when the stock market tanks, and there will be times when managed funds are at an advantage.

But in my view it's the long term statistical average that counts, not what the most recent period has done.

Foolish best,
Alan O
TMFBoing

dinky79 13 Jan 2010 , 8:51am

"So would you care to tell us NOW (not retrospectively, in ten years time) which managed funds are likely to beat FTSE trackers over the next ten years?"

Clairvoyancy isn't my strong suit i'm afraid. But i personally would consider a BALANCED portfolio of ETF's (that may even include a Tracker) would be a better bet than a single tracker fund.

It was the Motley UK Investment Guide that first introduced me to investing and i am thankful for it. But the words that were published in the 2000 edition now seem very hollow as a passive fund started on the back of that information would have left a lot of new investors disappointed in 2010 (or pre-recession for that matter).

A lot of doom-mongers are now predicting a lost decade for the UK economy and whilst i acknowledge that the FTSE may well still rise in spite of this, i personally feel more comfortable having only limited exposure to any continued stagnation of a single index.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.