With equal respect, this is addressing a point that I have never raised.

My thinking on those points.

Quality I have no problem with as that is the whole point of the fund. There are some interesting differences between the quality index though and the Fundsmith holdings. I would say around 50% overlap so there is certainly room for opinion.

Those stocks have been more highly valued for much of the last 10 years. Whether they are expensive comes down to if they deliver on the promise of future returns. Most active growth based funds seems to struggle to explain their valuation mechanisms to people. They are only expensive if they rerate heavily downwards rather than upwards.

There is a US focus but little more than your comparative Global 100 fund which is 71% US also. Seems about right although the usual point about where global companies make their revenue is still valid. The fund is not overly reliant on the US economy or government. These companies are clearly capable of playing the tax and competition game.

High concentration is a good thing in my mind.

Well it's not but let me answer your point:

boxed into:
quality - the fund is explicitly a quality only fund - so a really strange criticism.

expensive - in your opinion - there are also plenty of much more 'expensive' funds out there. Versus the 10 year much less so - I get this can change and can change suddenly. Key to valuation is how good the long term earnings quality of these companies is - he and his team were and are top rated analysts and the quality of analysis they publically provide is better than pretty much anything else available to retail investors. Maybe you have a deep insight in this area? Comments on Nike suggest not however.

mega-cap - c.£30bn fund - c.30 positions - £1bn a position - say max 5% ownership of a company for liquidity - min market cap would be £20bn this gives 700 or global companies to choose from of which the company invests in 30, this is hardly 'boxed in'.

US focus - as above all of these companies could be UK based it's an active choice that 72% are US based. Furthermore I'm not sure why country of listing is an issue - it tells you very little about where earnings come from especially for bigger companies.

I think I may have said this before, but I encourage you and others to write with your views to Smith and ask that the questions are included in the next annual shareholder meeting. Should be March 2022. Ask interesting enough questions and they stand a very good chance of being answered publicly. However, to be honest, I don't really see anything new here at all. All I see are the same things being said over and over in slightly different ways.

Nope - though to be honest no idea what boxed into quality means - to critique a quality fund.

Expensive - all was regarding valuation of underlying holdings (not fund fee), could have added 10 year yield to make it clearer.

Notable you've not responded to (or perhaps understood) the rest of it.