Past performance is no guarantee of future results.  In particular, the Fundsmith fund takes large bets on a small number of companies.  Its top holdings are currently Microsoft (7.3%), Paypal (6.0%), Facebook (4.8%).  Can't say I personally fancy any of them.  There's a definite risk Microsoft could be broken up.  Paypal faces newer and better payment system rivals.  And Facebook is on the decline, given that middle aged and elderly people are using it, the younger generation has largely abandoned it.  MWY is much more diversified:  its largest holding is 2.3%.  In my opinion, it's a safer bet.  (I also hold it.)  YTD up 18.56% - not to be sniffed at.

Incidentally, is the HL charting thing new? I wasn't aware that one could add a second investment to a chart.  In the past I've always used Trustnet for charting, which can be a pain.

"who better to hold than the market leaders"

Pretty much by definition, the market leaders are mature businesses so are unlikely to grow rapidly. Smaller companies have much better growth opportunities. (But also more opportunity of failing, too.)

As for Tesla, its share price has risen to a ridiculous value. Its market cap is now greater than the 9 largest automakers combined. How on earth can that be rational? It is inevitable that its value will fall dramatically. However, when that will happen, and how far it will fall, nobody knows. Of course, in the interim the share price may climb to even greater stratospheric heights. I'd rather stay on the sidelines and not be swept up in the Tesla hysteria only to see the value of my shareholding plummet.

www.cnbc.com/2020/12/14/tesla-valuation-more-than-nine-largest-carmakers-combined-why.html (Full article is paywalled.)

HL chart, it’s been there for a couple of years, user friendly, I know I can add at least 2 if not 3 other investments. Click on the option charts and performance of whatever stock you are looking at, and add from the drop down list.

Indeed it is a measured piece but some questions/concerns:


"Our $306 fair value estimate puts the shares solidly in 1-star territory".
It would be interesting to understand how they arrive at this estimate of value, especially since the current price is double their estimate, do they really think the share price is overvalued by 50%..it seems more likely that their valuation matrix is seriously flawed.

"We think global mass adoption of pure electric vehicles is still years away".
Logically this seems true but it's a picture that could change rapidly if governments intervene as a result of climate change and enforce a mandate to reduce emissions, as in the case of the UK and their 2030 deadline.

"We also think Tesla benefits from a first-mover advantage in electric vehicles".
I think this is a key part of the reasons why, Tesla is to EV's what Hoover was to vacuum cleaners.

"we see legacy companies as having legacy cost structures around ICE vehicle programs that cannot be eliminated overnight as these programs are needed to keep those companies profitable while also developing BEVs".
This is the biggee, can the majors transition and remain leaders and maintain cash flow.

"Until an electric vehicle far cheaper than the Model 3 goes on sale in mass volume, there is no way to know for sure if consumers in large volume are willing to switch".
Consumers don't want mass volume vehicles even if they are cheap, look how many have come to market and failed miserably. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobiles_known_for_negative_reception

Separately:

I watched a podcast by a Baillie Gifford Analyst who argued that the new norm resulting from the pandemic would mean that many tech company offerings would become permanent fixtures, necessity being the mother of invention and all that....cases in point, Amazon and the rise of online shopping and online medical consultations using video, the pandemic has given many tech products a nitro boost that will not go away once the pandemic ends.

Thanks.....I am reading it but it's slow going so I need some time to absorb and understand it. One point that jumps out is their definition of what the star ratings actually means, one star for example includes: "Indicates a high probability of undesirable risk-adjusted returns from the current market price over a
 multiyear time frame". I wonder if it's possible or sensible to apply the same weightings and criteria to start ups that are applied to mature companies, by their very nature they are at a different point in the growth lifecycle. A second thought along similar lines is whether the same rules apply should to cyclical stocks that apply to say growth stocks. 

I'll read some more.

I would love a return to the days of old, happiness was a two month old copy of What Investor Trust, I thought I had hit the motherlode if I picked up a three day old copy of the financial section of the Daily Mail.

These days, information overload, too much to digest and not enough time.

Heres a prime example.

www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/scottish-mortgage-trust-cheaper-alternatives-ii514593?fbclid=IwAR1gYhozip_v3Md07TxRaU_2dj_GuWU-UE_yxlsE5Ui_DNhupzyLvoFXB1M