What’s frustratingly apparent is GCQ’s holdings are remarkably...

What’s frustratingly apparent is GCQ’s holdings are remarkably similar to what VG1 (and RG8) have tended to hold, the big tech monopolies including payment systems, and luxury goods.

I wish VGI had just stayed 98-99% invested. They can pay taxes out of dividends or by selling their worst/most expensive holdings and/or trimming from multiple stocks that rise especially those that become too concentrated via their own outperformance.

VG1 have paid all the salaries and bonuses to get 99% of the work done. If they had simply maintained exposure at something like around 100% (e.g. long 120 / short 20) instead of around 50% that they’ve tended towards over much of its existence now (e.g. long 100 / short 50), I believe probably they would have outperformed the indices even after expenses (salaries, currency hedging etc).

If they’re not attempting to make economic predictions then why are they so often not fully invested? They’ve tended to be too cautious at the wrong times and actually have reduced net exposures after market falls and then waited to redeploy only after sentiment and market prices have picked up again, so if anything they keep lagging on the way up and on the way down.

GCQ buy businesses that have been around for a century. Therefore they don’t have to make economic predictions. Any downturns just weaken their competitors and when the strongest companies do suffer they recover and are stronger than ever

I don’t mind when Funds sell when their holdings are very expensive, as GCQ did. As with GCQ, in these cases they often get an opportunity or two to buy them back when their price has corrected anyway. I do resent that the VGI Funds have been half invested for years rather than for transient moments when the market has become overly optimistic.