Hi Keith – have added you to the mailing list.

Thanks, Matt – added you manually as requested.

I wish I could find a better way to assess their abilities in this area. So far, it seems to me that they own a lot of the ‘hot names’, but the key question is – what round do they buy them at? I worry that they are often in the last round, and so miss out on the real hypergrowth of earlier rounds. One has to think of the people they are competing against i.e. lots of ferocious Americans e.g. a16z who have been doing it a lot longer than BG, and must have much better networks.

I don’t want to hate on BG – I think they do decent Sus Growth, and have obviously had an incredible 2020, but I do want to understand their Unlisted Strategy better.

Separately – IT size is a real problem I think – anything sub-100m is pretty uninvestable I think – the liquidity and spreads are just too hideous even for an individual – some online platforms don’t even have quotes sometimes.

Thanks, TrailRunner. Sorry that the sign-up email misbehaved for you – I have added you manually so you should be all set.

Could you please manually add me to your newsletter because the confirmation email has not appeared in my InBox or Spam InBox (I’ve tried twice).
Many thanks

Thanks, PKDR. Sounds like a pretty decent portfolio you’ve built up there.

I’ve been thinking about adding SMT and/or other Baillie Gifford trusts for a while now as well and I’ve been having similar doubts to the ones you’ve mentioned. In my case, I would probably have to sell something first so that makes my decision a little more complex.

The SMT of the 2000s was quite different though I would say. Amazon was first bought in 2004 I believe but it was several more years before the portfolio started to look more like it does today with a lot more non-UK stocks and a focus on ‘disruptors’.

That’s not to say that the BG method of investing couldn’t move in and out of favour but knowing when that might happen is pretty much impossible of course. One option I sometimes employ in these cases is buying into a position more gradually which can lessen any regret you feel but might make your average entry price a bit higher.

I’m probably slightly more relaxed on the size issue having looked at that with funds like Fundsmith Equity and Lindsell Train Global. Both those run more concentrated portfolios whereas SMT seems a little more diversified and only takes big positions in very large companies so I think it probably has a little more room to run.

I did hear Tom Slater comment in a recent interview that their large size could actually help when it comes to getting access the most attractive unquoted opportunities, especially as BG can spread the risk over several funds. I’ve been impressed by Slater whenever I have heard him speak so I think SMT should be in good hands when Anderson takes more of a back seat.

Best of luck whatever you decide to do 🙂

I really enjoy your posts on here. Very informative.

I am a little earlier in my IT journey than you (in my thirties) and have a portfolio of global looking trusts (Mid Wynd, Murray, FGT – I see this as being quite global given where the companies derive their revenues), with a big slant to smaller companies (EWI, SSON, HSL), and emerging markets (JPM Emerging, MMIT).

One thing I am trying to get my head around is whether it is worth at this stage going into to Scottish Mortgage. On its face, it ticks a number of boxes – great managers at a well established fund house, access to unquoteds, good slant to China but flexible given the global mandate, and very good value in terms of charges.

What puts me off is the fact it has been on a tear for so long, and probably wont do as well the next decade (your article on 30 years worth of results is sobering – it barely outperformed the market between 2000 and 2010), and its size. Im less worried about that I suppose because my time horizon is very long – decades. I am more put off by the potential for its size to get in the way of returns in the future. I appreciate that as a closed ended fund it doesn’t really have liquidity problems a la Woodford, but I do wonder if in time the size will hold back its ability to grow, and increasingly there will be companies it cannot really invest in? What do you think? Perhaps it doesn’t matter because it will always invest in very large and mega caps, though I notice even the bullish managers are tilting away from the Amazons and Facebooks of this world.

Be very interested in your views, and thanks again for the great posts.