has this bolted Baillie Gifford American fund

[Deleted User]

Lightning strike? That's a bit of a stretch, Mordko. There are a shoal of different investments but BG are clearly fishing on the right stretch of the riverbank for an outstanding catch. 
Any time frame is meaningful because we can never get it back. The difference in returns (opportunity cost) is as real as a tax-bill or paid work or a mislaid purse.

[Deleted User]

Annual returns don’t mean a thing for someone who has a long term objective (such as retirement). Its just one tiny step on a long journey.  When I look at the plot of my returns over 25 years, annual ups and downs are tiny blips - even the largest among them. 

Growth technology funds which did the best in the 90s were the very worst of the ‘00s.  And then again the best of the 10s.  Funds like this https://m.benzinga.com/article/74186?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

My pay check is only meaningful in the context of my net worth because its repeatable.  Wouldn’t be a big deal if it was a one off. Same goes for taxes. 

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

Annual returns don’t mean a thing for someone who has a long term objective (such as retirement). Its just one tiny step on a long journey.  When I look at the plot of my returns over 25 years, annual ups and downs are tiny blips - even the largest among them. 

Growth technology funds which did the best in the 90s were the very worst of the ‘00s.  And then again the best of the 10s.  Funds like this https://m.benzinga.com/article/74186?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Returns over any time frame are not meaningless. It is any investor's prerogative to ignore them, that's a different thing, but the value represented by the difference between performance is as real as any other figure  - uninsured accident, salary foregone - in fact moreso, since there may be a remedy for other measures but none for opportunity cost.

Your reference to growth technology stocks glosses over a huge overall shift in value. For example, Apple was valued about the same as Glaxo little more than a decade ago, now Aapl is valued 25 times higher. They're not going back to anything like their former relationship. There is no compensating "your turn next" law governing different types of investment.

itwasntme001

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

Annual returns don’t mean a thing for someone who has a long term objective (such as retirement). Its just one tiny step on a long journey.  When I look at the plot of my returns over 25 years, annual ups and downs are tiny blips - even the largest among them. 

Growth technology funds which did the best in the 90s were the very worst of the ‘00s.  And then again the best of the 10s.  Funds like this https://m.benzinga.com/article/74186?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Returns over any time frame are not meaningless. It is any investor's prerogative to ignore them, that's a different thing, but the value represented by the difference between performance is as real as any other figure  - uninsured accident, salary foregone - in fact moreso, since there may be a remedy for other measures but none for opportunity cost.

Your reference to growth technology stocks glosses over a huge overall shift in value. For example, Apple was valued about the same as Glaxo little more than a decade ago, now Aapl is valued 25 times higher. They're not going back to anything like their former relationship. There is no compensating "your turn next" law governing different types of investment.

It doesn't need to revert back to the former relationship, it merely needs to revert some for the tech trades to end up losing out longer term from here.

Prism

Deleted_User said:

 Its not like the fund managers are doing complex calculations to estimate value of each stock. There is no formula which tells you to pick Tesla. Its not like they did lots of research on obscure and overlooked but well managed companies with moats. Every company they picked is regularly discussed by the talking heads on financial shows.

In the case of Baillie Gifford I would say that exactly what they did. They are known for completely ignoring those talking heads and the various bits of paid analysis and doing all of their own research. They have their own valuation metrics based on scenarios that they work from. Around a third of the investments originally come from private equity and are very long term investments which happen to have come good this year.

[Deleted User]

Prism said:

Deleted_User said:

 Its not like the fund managers are doing complex calculations to estimate value of each stock. There is no formula which tells you to pick Tesla. Its not like they did lots of research on obscure and overlooked but well managed companies with moats. Every company they picked is regularly discussed by the talking heads on financial shows.

In the case of Baillie Gifford I would say that exactly what they did. They are known for completely ignoring those talking heads and the various bits of paid analysis and doing all of their own research. They have their own valuation metrics based on scenarios that they work from. Around a third of the investments originally come from private equity and are very long term investments which happen to have come good this year.

And for the ITs (well SMT) 17% PE, 35% former PE.

[Deleted User]

itwasntme001 said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

Annual returns don’t mean a thing for someone who has a long term objective (such as retirement). Its just one tiny step on a long journey.  When I look at the plot of my returns over 25 years, annual ups and downs are tiny blips - even the largest among them. 

Growth technology funds which did the best in the 90s were the very worst of the ‘00s.  And then again the best of the 10s.  Funds like this https://m.benzinga.com/article/74186?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Returns over any time frame are not meaningless. It is any investor's prerogative to ignore them, that's a different thing, but the value represented by the difference between performance is as real as any other figure  - uninsured accident, salary foregone - in fact moreso, since there may be a remedy for other measures but none for opportunity cost.

Your reference to growth technology stocks glosses over a huge overall shift in value. For example, Apple was valued about the same as Glaxo little more than a decade ago, now Aapl is valued 25 times higher. They're not going back to anything like their former relationship. There is no compensating "your turn next" law governing different types of investment.

It doesn't need to revert back to the former relationship, it merely needs to revert some for the tech trades to end up losing out longer term from here.

Then unless one of them changes by a factor of x25, the long term holder in Apple is still the winner.

They are two stars heading away from each in the investment universe, and so much of conventional investment strategy is based on the proposition that their direction of travel is about to reverse. 

itwasntme001

ZingPowZing said:

itwasntme001 said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

Annual returns don’t mean a thing for someone who has a long term objective (such as retirement). Its just one tiny step on a long journey.  When I look at the plot of my returns over 25 years, annual ups and downs are tiny blips - even the largest among them. 

Growth technology funds which did the best in the 90s were the very worst of the ‘00s.  And then again the best of the 10s.  Funds like this https://m.benzinga.com/article/74186?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Returns over any time frame are not meaningless. It is any investor's prerogative to ignore them, that's a different thing, but the value represented by the difference between performance is as real as any other figure  - uninsured accident, salary foregone - in fact moreso, since there may be a remedy for other measures but none for opportunity cost.

Your reference to growth technology stocks glosses over a huge overall shift in value. For example, Apple was valued about the same as Glaxo little more than a decade ago, now Aapl is valued 25 times higher. They're not going back to anything like their former relationship. There is no compensating "your turn next" law governing different types of investment.

It doesn't need to revert back to the former relationship, it merely needs to revert some for the tech trades to end up losing out longer term from here.

Then unless one of them changes by a factor of x25, the long term holder in Apple is still the winner.

They are two stars heading away from each in the investment universe, and so much of conventional investment strategy is based on the proposition that their direction of travel is about to reverse. 

But we are talking about what happens next for these stocks/funds.  Not what has already happened.

I've said it before and I will say it again.  Whenever you make a style/sector choice for your portfolio, you HAVE to market time because at some point it can under-perform the market for a long time.  Holding onto Apple for the next 10 years may end up losing out on opportunity if the general market outpaces Apple over that period.

[Deleted User]

itwasntme001 said:

ZingPowZing said:

itwasntme001 said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

Annual returns don’t mean a thing for someone who has a long term objective (such as retirement). Its just one tiny step on a long journey.  When I look at the plot of my returns over 25 years, annual ups and downs are tiny blips - even the largest among them. 

Growth technology funds which did the best in the 90s were the very worst of the ‘00s.  And then again the best of the 10s.  Funds like this https://m.benzinga.com/article/74186?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Returns over any time frame are not meaningless. It is any investor's prerogative to ignore them, that's a different thing, but the value represented by the difference between performance is as real as any other figure  - uninsured accident, salary foregone - in fact moreso, since there may be a remedy for other measures but none for opportunity cost.

Your reference to growth technology stocks glosses over a huge overall shift in value. For example, Apple was valued about the same as Glaxo little more than a decade ago, now Aapl is valued 25 times higher. They're not going back to anything like their former relationship. There is no compensating "your turn next" law governing different types of investment.

It doesn't need to revert back to the former relationship, it merely needs to revert some for the tech trades to end up losing out longer term from here.

Then unless one of them changes by a factor of x25, the long term holder in Apple is still the winner.

They are two stars heading away from each in the investment universe, and so much of conventional investment strategy is based on the proposition that their direction of travel is about to reverse. 

But we are talking about what happens next for these stocks/funds.  Not what has already happened.

I've said it before and I will say it again.  Whenever you make a style/sector choice for your portfolio, you HAVE to market time because at some point it can under-perform the market for a long time.  Holding onto Apple for the next 10 years may end up losing out on opportunity if the general market outpaces Apple over that period.

Anything is possible. 
But if a trend reversal should happen, those who have reaped the harvest from the good years will be in a much better frame of mind to withstand a drop - Genesis 41:25-36 . Of course, their investments have further to fall, potentially, but those who keep faith with investments that have served them well - like BG - are not trying to time the market. Those who top slice, rebalance, buy the dip or indeed shun certain sectors because they judge them overpriced, are taking on that risk.

itwasntme001

ZingPowZing said:

itwasntme001 said:

ZingPowZing said:

itwasntme001 said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

Annual returns don’t mean a thing for someone who has a long term objective (such as retirement). Its just one tiny step on a long journey.  When I look at the plot of my returns over 25 years, annual ups and downs are tiny blips - even the largest among them. 

Growth technology funds which did the best in the 90s were the very worst of the ‘00s.  And then again the best of the 10s.  Funds like this https://m.benzinga.com/article/74186?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Returns over any time frame are not meaningless. It is any investor's prerogative to ignore them, that's a different thing, but the value represented by the difference between performance is as real as any other figure  - uninsured accident, salary foregone - in fact moreso, since there may be a remedy for other measures but none for opportunity cost.

Your reference to growth technology stocks glosses over a huge overall shift in value. For example, Apple was valued about the same as Glaxo little more than a decade ago, now Aapl is valued 25 times higher. They're not going back to anything like their former relationship. There is no compensating "your turn next" law governing different types of investment.

It doesn't need to revert back to the former relationship, it merely needs to revert some for the tech trades to end up losing out longer term from here.

Then unless one of them changes by a factor of x25, the long term holder in Apple is still the winner.

They are two stars heading away from each in the investment universe, and so much of conventional investment strategy is based on the proposition that their direction of travel is about to reverse. 

But we are talking about what happens next for these stocks/funds.  Not what has already happened.

I've said it before and I will say it again.  Whenever you make a style/sector choice for your portfolio, you HAVE to market time because at some point it can under-perform the market for a long time.  Holding onto Apple for the next 10 years may end up losing out on opportunity if the general market outpaces Apple over that period.

Anything is possible. 
But if a trend reversal should happen, those who have reaped the harvest from the good years will be in a much better frame of mind to withstand a drop - Genesis 41:25-36 . Of course, their investments have further to fall, potentially, but those who keep faith with investments that have served them well - like BG - are not trying to time the market. Those who top slice, rebalance, buy the dip or indeed shun certain sectors because they judge them overpriced, are taking on that risk.

Anyone is taking a risk when investing (cash included if held long term) but the point is no one knows what will happen and after having such a great run with some of these funds such as SMT and some of these stocks such as Apple, how can you rely on faith for this to continue happening?  Surely you need to rely on assessing risk and judgement to determine what is best for your money to be in?  As you so elegantly put it, it comes down to "the price of everything, the value of nothing".

How long have these BG funds been around?  SMT and a few others I think for a long time but many have not.  So too early to tell if it was a one off fluke or genuinely smart people knowing where to place your money.  Will BG move away from growth when the tide turns?  I suspect not, at least not in good time.

SMT suffered from 50% loss from the tech peak and took ages to recover.  Turns out those who held have reaped the benefits.  But compare SMT to a fund like capital gearing, going back since the 1980s the latter has done quite a bit better (for a lot less risk).  We don't really know how all the other myriad of funds will do, they all have different fund managers, and I find it hard to believe they can all be that good to let faith in them determine how we invest.

Faith and investing are a very dangerous combination.