By feedback. Easier with spoken words than written. yerknowarramean?

Otherwiswe all communication is meaningless.

Yes. But not so much the structure as the cost of holding and dealing. Important for my CGT-as-cash-proxy thinking is 1. better return than cash, 2. low volatility. (but not zero), 3. easy access (I have problems with OTPs). I choose CGAR the oeic. Is there an OEIC version of PNL?

Back to "words". My immediate reading of CGT is capital gains tax. But I know what you mean from the context.

The volatility caused by discount widening shouldn't be an issue for a long-term holding – other than presenting opportunities to buy cheap .. i.e. if the underlying value hasn't changed, it really doesn't matter whether CGT dipped an extra 5% (even 50%) – it's just down to intra-day liquidity.

The advantage is it presents opportunities to buy at discounts .. The disadvantage is, if you want to rebalance on a dip, you're probably not going to want to free up value from an IT on a temporary discount.

I think the difference between CGAR and CGT, or TT and PNL, is going to come down to how they handle scale .. The biggest threat to fund performance is often size – the better it does, the more money flows in .. DCM opens ITs to that same risk .. I think the question is whether it's easier to hard-close an OEIC (as CG have done before) when it gets too large, or halt DCM and let the premium go up? .. As a strategy like CGT gets larger, the impact of individual IT trades and opportunities gets smaller .. CGAR seems to be an experiment with more liquid/scalable versions of the strategy .. In principle, ITs are probably more sensible long-long-term holdings, because of the extra flexibility and fewer liquidity issues

CG AR is domiciled in Ireland, takes a little longer to complete than a UK domiciled Fund would (in general, I'm sure there are exceptions).

On the buying in side this also takes 2 days via HL, and (to my mild annoyance) I've yet to actually get my latest buy at precisely the day's price, I assume there's a currency conversion getting thrown in for good measure (if anyone knows a better explanation I'm all ears?).


@Aminatidi ....CG AR as KL says is the scalable version, more designed to appeal to the Institution that wants to park £500m than me wanting to park my monthly divi's etc. Think back to Woodford, what finally killed him was Kent County Council wanting 250m back in one fell swoop. While KCC were quite right to assume they could simply sell their units, it was the underlying liquidity of Woodford's fund itself that became the issue. CG AR aim to avoid any such nonsense by holding more in the way of liquid (hopefully) ETF's and less in illiquid (definitely maybe) IT's and so on. If a large holder wants their money back, Mr Spiller will be able to sell assets easily into the market to meet said redemption, contra Neil Woodford, who simply collapsed because there wasn't a cat in hell's chance the open market was going to snap up what he was selling! Spiller needs to avoid at least some of the sort of less liquid assets that make up a rump of CGT, where the different structure allows him not to need to sell the assets themselves to meet redemptions, we just sell our CGT shares if we want our cash.

It was Fundsmith V Woodford that really brought the point home, Terry reckoned he could liquidate Fundsmith in a matter of hours if needed. Woodford on the other hand I seem to remember was measured not in hours, but in years, literally. If you're an Institutional Investor, this difference really matters, the flip side imho being that in return, the Institutions will be "stickier" investors, less prone to panic selling.

I do recall reading that CG AR actually had money inflows during the worst of this year, and as they've now passed an apparently important milestone of 3 yrs existence, the theory should now be that CG AR will grow more in size as many wouldn't take positions until a proven track record was established.

My homegrown portfolio-processing software used to categorize some holdings as "Aggressive"... I replaced it with "Bold". Partly because it just seemed to fit the intent of the holdings better. Partly because it literally fit into the limited space in the output columns better.