Both funds invest globally for the best growth opportunities over the long term

There's a sentiment that you shouldn't invest in funds with similar philosophies

The funds achieved similar returns despite having only five shares in common

The Fundsmith Equity and Lindsell Train Global Equity funds need no introduction in investment circles.

These portfolios have topped the bestsellers list of a number of investment platforms for several years, having tempted investors with their stellar returns.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fundsmith has returned a whopping 303 per cent in a little over eight years since it was launched (to 11 February 2019), turning a £1,000 investment into £4,030.

Lindsell Train Global Equity, which launched four months later in April 2011, is up 266 per cent, turning £1,000 to £3,660 since inception.

There's a sentiment that you should only invest in either Fundsmith Equity, managed by Terry Smith (pictured), or Lindsell Tain Global Equity

There's a sentiment that you should only invest in either Lindsell Tain Global Equity, which Nick Train co-manages or Fundsmith Equity

Few would contest that both are among the best funds that scour global stock markets for the best growth opportunities in market.

But some prominent experts have argued you should invest in only one of the two, not both.

Click here to resize this module

Lindsell Train Global Equity was inaugurated into Hargreaves Lansdown's recently relaunched favourite fund list, called Select 50, but Fundsmith doesn't make the cut.

At the relaunch event, Mark Dampier, the platform's head of investment research, said that the two funds are so similar in style that there isn't a need for both on the list.

Fundsmith misses out due to similar performance but higher fees than Lindsell Train Global Equity. The former has an ongoing charge of 0.96 per cent, while the latter levies 0.74 per cent.

Dampier told This is Money: 'Surely the point of putting a portfolio together is to have different funds with different styles. In order to achieve a less correlated approach it makes sense to invest in just one of these funds and choose another fund that adopts a more value style.'

But not everyone agrees. Rival DIY investment platform Bestinvest includes both funds in its equivalent favourite funds list.

Jason Hollands of financial planners Tilney, which runs Bestinvest, said: 'While there are certainly some similarities in approach, there are also differences, so holding both does not result in duplication. Indeed, I personally am invested in both funds.'

So should you only invest in one of these funds or are there enough nuances between the two to justify investing in both? We take a look.

Similar investment philosophy

Terry Smith, who manages Fundsmith Equity, shares a similar investment philosophy to Michael Lindsell, Nick Train and James Bullock, who co-manage the Lindsell Train Global Equity portfolio.

They both adopt the Warren Buffett-esque investment approach of buying and holding a small number of quality companies that can withstand the test of time.

One of the key things that Smith uses to evaluate such companies is a measure called return on capital employed, or ROCE, which looks at a company's profitability compared to how much capital is invested in the business.

Pictured: Warren Buffett. Smith and the three fund managers of the Lindsell Train Global Equity portfolio adopt the Buffett-esque investment approach of buying and holding a small number of quality companies that can withstand the test of time

This is measured by profits divided by a company's net assets. A high double-digit figure usually signals that a company has a competitive advantage over its rivals, as it can make more money from putting the same amount of capital to work.

ADVERTISEMENT

For those who want to understand more, Fundsmith takes the unusual approach of publishing an Owner's Manual. Its website lists its criteria for companies as:

high quality businesses that can sustain a high return on operating capital employed

businesses whose advantages are difficult to replicate

businesses which do not require significant leverage to generate returns

businesses with a high degree of certainty of growth from reinvestment of their cash flows at high rates of return

businesses that are resilient to change, particularly technological innovation

businesses whose valuation is considered by the Company to be attractive

The crux of the Lindsell Train Global Equity managers' philosophy is the belief that a concentrated portfolio of high quality companies with sustainable business models, strong market position and established brands is a winning formula.

They believe that durable, cash generative franchises are rare and undervalued by most investors most of the time.

While there are certainly some similarities in approach, there are also differences, so holding both does not result in duplication. Jason Hollands of Tilney

The managers find the bulk of their candidate investments predominately in the consumer branded goods, internet/media/software, pharmaceuticals and financials sectors.

To keep costs low, Smith and the Lindsell Train Global Equity managers refrain from trading unless it's absolutely necessary.

This is highlighted by the very small gap between the ongoing charges and actual cost of ownership, including transaction costs, of both funds.

The gap amounts to 0.05 per cent and 0.07 per cent for Fundsmith Equity and Lindsell Train Global Equity, bringing the cost of ownership to 1.01 per cent and 0.81 per cent respectively.

Fund overlap and sector weightings

It is not uncommon for funds with similar investment philosophies to invest in the same stocks - funds in the Investment Association's UK equity income sector often do.

While small amounts of overlap are to be expected, large amounts can amp up investment risk which could have a significant impact on a portfolio if the price of the overlapping shares experiences a sharp dip.

Going global reduces the chance of overlap, in theory, because fund managers have a much bigger pool in which to fish for opportunities.

According to investment research tool Morningstar Direct, Fundsmith Equity and Lindsell Train Global Equity have five stocks in common: PayPal, Unilever, Diageo, Intuit and PepsiCo. Both funds hold a concentrated portfolio of 28 and 29 holdings respectively.

When it comes to sector weightings, technology is the biggest within Fundsmith Equity, currently at 35.10 per cent, followed by consumer products at 29.40 per cent and health care at 26 per cent.

ADVERTISEMENT

Consumer products is the major theme in the Lindsell Train Global Equity portfolio with 48.70 per cent of the fund invested in the sector, ahead of technology at 32.40 per cent and financials at 9.70 per cent.

The latter fund also has a stake in Japanese shares which reflects Lindsell's background and knowledge of shares in the east Asian country.

Fundsmith avoids Japan but has a strong bias to US stocks - which account for two-thirds of the portfolio. Exposure to the UK is greater in the Lindsell Train Global Equity fund and both funds have a similar weighting in European stocks.

Performance

Despite having only five shares in common, the funds have generated similar returns to investors.

Fundsmith Equity wins the performance race by a nose over a five-year time horizon to 11 February 2019, having returned 153 per cent, turning a £1,000 investment into £2,520, versus the 148 per cent return achieved by Lindsell Train Global Equity.

But the latter has edged it over a three and one-year time horizon, returning 94 per cent and 20 per cent versus Fundsmith's return of 79 per cent and 17 per cent.

Expert verdict

Jason Hollands of of financial planners Tilney - BOTH

The similarities between the two are that both pursue an unconstrained approach to investing globally across developed stock markets - ie. they do not restrict their exposure to geographies or sectors based on the benchmark indices.

Both funds focus on high quality companies that are able to generate a high return on capital and assess them on their intrinsic value, rather than their current price/earnings trading multiples.

Both funds take a very long-term, buy-and-hold approach which results in very low portfolio turnover.

The portfolios of the two funds however are quite different with the Lindsell Train Global Equity fund having a more geographically diversified portfolio.

In particular, Fundsmith Equity has much greater exposure to US listed companies, which currently represent two-thirds of the portfolio.

This is very much an outcome of the stocks Terry Smith has chosen rather than a 'macroeconomic' or asset allocation view.

Over at Lindsell Train, the fund includes Japanese companies. This reflects co-manager Michael Train’s background in managing Japanese equities and so this knowledge and expertise is to be found in the Lindsell Train Global Equity fund.

I believe both funds work well together and investors with starting out with a blank sheet of paper might also tack on a global emerging markets fund, to provide some exposure to the developing world, such as Fidelity Emerging Markets which is managed by Nick Price.

Ben Yearsley of Shore Financial planning - Lindsell Train Global Equity

I wouldn't invest in both. Yes they might have different holdings, but style wise you aren't really getting much diversification.

I would much rather choose one and then pair it with another global fund doing something different, such as Schroder Global Recovery or First State Global Listed Infrastructure or even a health or tech fund.

By doing this you are exposing your portfolio to different investment styles.

Adrian Lowcock of fund broker Willis Owen - depends on the size of your portfolio

Whilst these two funds cover the same sector of global equities, they also have very similar investment philosophies and approaches in that they look for great companies which they believe can grind out decent compound growth over years.

As such, holding both could mean that you aren’t as well diversified because the styles are similar.

If you are just starting out or have a small portfolio you’d only really need one of these funds, but for larger portfolios there is a good argument for holding both – effectively splitting the allocation between the two funds.

ADVERTISEMENT

They are different enough that as long-term growth strategies they complement each other.