Thanks for your kind words, Tom. A lot of the best-performing trusts have a strong individual at the helm who seems difficult to replace – I think it comes down to sensible position sizing, as it often seems to do.

Independent is definitely racier, though!

I think he’s not someone I’d want to be on the other side of the table from, but the overall complexities meant that I’m happy with a small holding via Capital Gearing.

Personally though I’m happy with some ‘key man risk’ – depending on the person. I think Simon Knott has done a great job, has a low fee, lots of shares, and been consistent (esp. now the split-cap thing is sorted). If he suddenly did a big style drift, then of course things change. I’m also happier when it’s the manager’s name on the door, which it effectively is for RIII and certain others, as they’re less likely to leave (see Scotgems).

Independent is a bit too ‘sexy growth’ for me though – I can’t tell the difference between skill and luck from what I’ve seen, though granted I haven’t done a deep dive on it.

Thanks – there seem to be a few funds like this (Independent, Rights & Issues spring to mind but there are probably others as well) where there’s an overeliance on one individual. After the events of this week, it seems much more of a risk!

I went down the Christopher Mills rabbit hole in the aftermath of the financial crisis with NAS, and took a position. I like his style and his Evelyn Waugh novel monikered associates, but I was perennially bugged by the sort of ‘hygiene factors’ you mention here. So in the end I got out, but to be honest I probably should have stayed down the hole. He’s a proven moneymaker!