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.

- "IT Flexible Investment" (which CGT and PNL are in) as a whole has been pretty terrible... so possibly focussing on CGT is just cherry picking the trust in that sector which has gotten most lucky... like picking SMT out of IT Global (which would smash everything else flat if I added it to the chart). Don't know enough about the other peculiar odd-bod trusts in that "flexible" sector to know whether they're really in any way comparable to CGT/PNL though.

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.

Don't know enough about the other peculiar odd-bod trusts in that "flexible" sector to know whether they're really in any way comparable to CGT/PNL though.