Yes, survivorship bias is something to be aware of here and I have made that point more explicitly in previous reviews of these lists. However, I suspect it’s less of a factor than many passive enthusiasts claim in this instance as it’s rare for a trust to underperform for an extended period before it is taken out and often it is the larger trusts that prosper and the smaller ones that fade away. So if you look at an index of investment trusts, it tends to compare fairly well over long periods.

There’s nothing wrong with a global tracker though and I believe there are usually the best option for most people and especially those who prefer a more hands-off approach.

Instead of trying to guess which ITs will do well (unfortunately nobody can really do that) it will probably be better to just buy VWRL and know that in the long-term you will equivocally beat ALL of these funds, with less volatility and much lower fees. (And even if you won’t beat a few of them, you will still have lower volatility, which means higher Sharpe ratio, which equals beating them).

As you point out, it’s interesting that the trusts with the highest total share price return for a lump sum investment (e.g. SST) do not make it to the very top of the table for total value (based on maximum annual ISA subscriptions rather than an initial lump sum).

So, should we be choosing different trusts to invest in depending on whether we are making a single lump-sum investment or regular contributions?