Great post but I suspect the rate of the decline has something to do with how potentially fickle businesses like Facebook actually are. Unlike more traditional companies such as Walmart, J&J, Lockheed Martin etc. the likelihood of the business becoming irrelevant are much higher. Once the steady stream of users leaving the platforms starts happening it could build like a snowball and very quickly there is no business. Really not that difficult to see such a scenario playing out, imagine what it would take for businesses such as Walmart, J&J and Lockheed Martin to disappear into obscurity as rapidly as a company like Facebook.

A good discipline I think.

As the world becomes ever more technologically advanced - particularly so in the rapidly evolving age of software - more of the layers of the "stack" of things we use and rely on involve abstract concepts; things which initially might seem like a load of technobabble can soon become just another everyday tool we all use, rely on and just shrug our shoulders about. And the younger you are, the faster you usually accept and adapt to all this increasingly abstract stuff that appears. Sometimes, it's only when you come across some real old duffer like my relative who cannot use even an ATM, never mind a PC, the internet or a smartphone that you realise how quickly things have and can change...

I think the metaverse is just the "in vogue" shorthand label being applied to a range of digital platforms and environments being developed through which outfits like FB amongst others are hoping to deliver a whole bunch of services & entertainment (esp. entertainment, perhaps) to us all in the future. These platforms seem to have an emphasis on using aspects of the physical world to help visualise things via 3D immersive environments, VR, avatars etc. plus gamification.

To me, some of this appears like a contemporary attempt to return to the former walled-gardens of AOL, Prodigy and CompuServe before they lost out to the WWW as the internet platform of choice. Rich pickings if you could become the gatekeeper of such a place, monetise its activity, displace others in the transition to it, or create new services and means for businesses and consumers inhabiting the platform to pay you one way or another.

It might all be total bollocks of course, or maybe in 10 years we may all regularly be using aspects of this stuff without thinking it's a big deal, just as we do now with smartphones which are more commonplace than flushing toilets or refrigerators, something few of us could probably have imagined.

Who knows? The lesson is probably to retain an open mind.

Joe Soap's point above about legacy incumbents not commonly shaping the future is very valid: if it does all happen, whatever "it" turns out to be, who'll actually be the biggest winners?

Interesting ref Alphabet.

When TS bought Amazon that was one of the factors that prompted my exit from FS as it feels as if the fund has run out of interesting ideas. Adding Alphabet reinforces that for me personally, though I accept my knowledge is next to zero versus Mr Smith.

The more the fund looks like the index the more it will perform like the index. This would make me stop and think on 2 fronts - will it have the defensive characteristics it used to have as it introduces more tech in exchange for holdings in other sectors? And will it be able to generate alpha beyond the index if it looks more like the index? Essentially the active share must be getting reduced with these latest purchases.....

I also hate to doff a cap to Bulldog Drummond but his preferred L&G Global 100 index Trust is now tearing away from FS having returned 16% more over 3 years and with a lower drawdown in 2022.

Are any holders remotely concerned by the amount of trading of late? There was Amazon, now Alphabet, I think several exits (I recall a healthcare one, IHG, Sage perhaps and something else). Then the position they started building and changed their mind and sold. And the latest factsheet says they are building another 2 x new positions as well. This seems quite a big deviation from the usual buy and hold.

Not really - there have previously been short bursts of activity amongst the months of absolutely nothing happening. Last year there were four sales and one purchase which leaves room for a couple more. Transaction fees were still low at 0.01%

It still has a 50% allocation to traditionally defensive sectors (staples and healthcare) which is what makes it different from the index for me

oh I don't know, I think I'd rather see the models :)