Baillie Gifford American Fund Factsheet
In plain words
This report is a monthly update for the Baillie Gifford American Fund. It lost 4.6% over six months while the S&P 500 gained 11.7%, and it has badly lagged over five years, ranking near the bottom of its 226 peers. The manager sticks to a long-term growth style: a concentrated portfolio of quality companies held for years, with no short-term market calls. Top holdings include Amazon.com as the largest position, followed by NVIDIA and Meta Platforms. The report lists end-of-period weights only, not trades made during the period.
Baillie Gifford American Fund is a concentrated (50 stocks), low-turnover (37%) long-term growth fund that targets outperformance of the S&P 500 index on a sterling basis over rolling five-year periods. As of June 30, 2026, the fund had assets of £1,980.51m and returned -4.6%, -4.5%, 12.0%, and -5.3
Monthly Report Card
As of 30 June 2026, the fund returned -4.6% over the past six months versus +11.7% for the S&P 500 Index, underperforming by 16.3 percentage points; over the past year it returned -4.5% versus +26.3% for the index, lagging by 30.8 percentage points; the five-year annualized return was -5.3%, ranking 225th out of 226 funds in its peer group.
| Measure | 6 months | 1 year | 3 years (annualized) | 5 years (annualized) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fund (Class B-Acc) | -4.6% | -4.5% | 12.0% | -5.3% |
| S&P 500 Index | 11.7% | 26.3% | 18.9% | 14.3% |
| IA North America Sector Average | 10.7% | 22.4% | 15.9% | 11.0% |
| Peer group ranking | 268/278 | 269/273 | 194/246 | 225/226 |
Discrete annual returns show violent swings in relative performance: in 2021/22 the fund lost 56.0% (the index gained only +1.7%), followed by three consecutive years of positive returns, including 2024/25 when it significantly outperformed the index by 16.2 percentage points; but in 2025/26, when the index surged 26.3%, the fund instead fell 4.5%, making it the worst relative year of the past two. The report also notes that share values are calculated at 10 a.m. prices while the index is calculated at the close, creating a mechanical time lag in the comparison; in addition to the S&P 500, the manager also regards the IA North America sector as an appropriate benchmark, so the report also discloses the sector average return and ranking.
Holdings and Sector Allocation: The Underlying Hand
At period end, the fund held 50 stocks, with the top ten holdings totaling approximately 45.7% (per the table below): Amazon.com (8.4%) was the largest, followed by NVIDIA (7.1%) and Meta Platforms (5.5%); by sector, the fund was overweight Consumer Discretionary (+14.3 percentage points) and Health Care (+7.9 percentage points), and underweight Information Technology (-9.8 percentage points).
| Rank | Holding | % of assets |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amazon.com | 8.4 |
| 2 | NVIDIA | 7.1 |
| 3 | Meta Platforms | 5.5 |
| 4 | Cloudflare | 4.3 |
| 5 | DoorDash | 4.2 |
| 6 | Shopify | 4.2 |
| 7 | Alphabet | 4.1 |
| 8 | Broadcom | 2.8 |
| 9 | Snowflake | 2.6 |
| 10 | The Ensign Group | 2.5 |
| Sector | Fund % | Index % | Difference (percentage points) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 28.2 | 38.0 | -9.8 |
| Consumer Discretionary | 23.6 | 9.3 | +14.3 |
| Health Care | 16.8 | 8.9 | +7.9 |
| Communication Services | 14.3 | 9.7 | +4.6 |
| Financials | 7.1 | 11.8 | -4.7 |
| Industrials | 5.0 | 8.9 | -3.9 |
| Real Estate | 2.0 | 1.8 | +0.2 |
| Materials | 1.3 | 1.8 | -0.6 |
| Consumer Staples | 0.3 | 4.6 | -4.3 |
| Cash | 1.4 | 0.0 | +1.4 |
This report is a monthly factsheet and does not disclose stock-level attribution of gains and losses or purchases/sales during the period, so it is impossible to determine each holding's specific contribution/drag to returns or the direction of capital inflows and outflows; the percentages above are merely a period-end snapshot. The portfolio has an active share of 78% (relative to the S&P 500), annual turnover of 37%, and 50 holdings (guidance range 30-50), consistent with its self-described "concentrated holdings, low turnover" approach.
Manager's Investment Stance and Methodology
This section contains no specific judgment on market direction; it merely reiterates the long-term growth methodology: bottom-up stock selection, a five-year holding period, concentration and low turnover, and outperforming the index by harnessing the asymmetry of equity returns.
The letter states that the team is "bottom-up, long-horizon growth investors" (bottom-up, growth investors with a long-term horizon), and that they "act on judgment, running a concentrated (usually 30-50 stocks), low-turnover portfolio" (We back our judgement, running a concentrated portfolio (usually between 30-50 stocks) with low turnover). Excess returns come from "harnessing the asymmetry of returns inherent in equity markets." The core belief is "identifying America's exceptional growth businesses and holding them long enough for the advantages of their business models and cultural strengths to become the dominant drivers of their stock prices" (identifying the exceptional growth businesses in America and owning them for long enough that the advantages of their business models and cultural strengths become the dominant drivers of their stock prices). The investment horizon is five years and is "not driven by short-term trends."
[Position annotation: long-term growth bull, no stance expressed on short-term market direction; the report discloses no position-structure metrics such as net exposure, leverage, or long/short ratio.] Readers should note that this self-positioning comes from the perspective of the position-holder, and that as of this report, performance across all periods lagged the index; the "long-term outperformance" claimed by the methodology has not yet materialized.
Fund Details
The fund is an OEIC, with assets of £1,980.51m, launched on July 31, 1997, co-managed by five partners; the annual management fee is 0.50%, the ongoing charge is 0.52%, and the past 12-month historic yield for both main share classes is 0.00%.
- Fund objective: to outperform the S&P 500 Index, in sterling terms, after fees, over rolling five-year periods.
- Assets: £1,980.51m; 50 holdings; IA North America sector; OEIC structure.
- Management team: Dave Bujnowski, Tom Slater, Gary Robinson, Kirsty Gibson, Lillian Li (all designated as Partner).
| Share class | ISIN | SEDOL | Annual management fee | Ongoing charge (OCF) | Historic yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class B-Acc | GB0006061963 | 0606196 | 0.50% | 0.52% | 0.00% |
| Class B-Inc | GB0006061856 | 0606185 | 0.50% | 0.52% | 0.00% |
- Target market: suitable for investors seeking long-term capital growth and able to bear losses; not suitable for investors focused on short-term volatility, seeking regular income, or with an investment horizon shorter than five years; no capital protection is provided.
- Risk warning: the fund is denominated in sterling but invests concentratedly in the U.S. market; the single-market and currency exposure may increase net asset value volatility; assets held in custody are subject to the risk of loss if the custodian becomes insolvent or negligent.
Continuing the analysis above, the follow-up content, after completing the remaining risk warnings, quickly turns to two key sections: the multi-country compliance statements and the rating endorsement system. The side-by-side appearance of these two sections is no coincidence; it reveals the standard practices of a UK asset manager in global distribution: first, use legal texts to delineate liability boundaries; then, use third-party ratings to lower trust costs; finally, achieve sales execution through channel division of labor.
The additional analysis below is presented along four dimensions.
1. Tiered Design of Risk Disclosures: From Portfolio Characteristics to Pricing Mechanism
The three risk clauses added in the follow-up form a logical "progressive closed loop" with the earlier risk descriptions. A careful analysis of the structure of these three clauses shows that each points to a different level of risk source:
| Risk Level | Key Points in the Original Wording | Attribution Logic | Response Tool |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio characteristics | Concentrated portfolio may lead to significant short-term stock price fluctuations | Active choice by the manager | Investors need to assess their own risk appetite |
| External environment | Foreign currency exposure and exchange rate fluctuations cause both returns and principal to be adversely affected in the same direction | Uncontrollable external variable | Investors are required to bear exchange rate risk themselves |
| Pricing mechanism | Fund price fluctuations are attributed to changes in the prices of underlying holdings and the valuation method | Market mechanism transmission | Investors need to understand the logic of NAV formation |
The three clauses constitute a triadic structure of "active → passive → technical": the first reflects the manager's investment style choice (concentrated holdings), the second reflects market externalities (exchange rates), and the third reflects transmission distortion at the mechanism level (pricing model). This tiered design is not redundant; rather, it gradually strips risk attribution away from "manager capability" step by step, ultimately pointing to the conclusion that the "investor bears the risk," echoing the closing line "you may not get back the amount invested."
From a regulatory compliance perspective, the latent function of such clauses is to provide fund companies with an evidence chain of having "fulfilled their disclosure obligations." Under the UK's FCA regulatory framework, the completeness of risk disclosure directly affects the allocation of the burden of proof in subsequent complaint handling.
II. Matrix Analysis of Cross-Border Compliance Statements: The Legal Infrastructure of Global Distribution
The regulatory statements from the six countries/regions in the sequel (Israel, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Mexico) are not merely an aggregation of territorial disclaimers, but rather the legal infrastructure of a global distribution network. A line-by-line comparison reveals a clear strategic logic:
| Jurisdiction | Applicable Law/Rules | Core Restrictions | Exemption Path | Regulatory Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Israel | Securities Law, 1968, Schedule 1; Investment Advice Law, Schedule 1 | Restricted to dual status of "sophisticated investor" and "qualified client" | Investor must satisfy both qualifications simultaneously | High dual-certification threshold |
| Colombia | National Securities and Issuer Registration System | Public trading and registration prohibited | Private placement to specific investors | Strict market access controls |
| Chile | CMF General Rule No. 336 (NCG 336) | Unregistered securities not subject to official supervision | Private placement exemption; public offers prohibited | Emphasizes investors' own judgment |
| Peru | SMV Public Registry of the Capital Market | Documents not reviewed by SMV | Targeted placement limited to institutional investors | Clear exclusion of non-institutional investors |
| Mexico | Article 8 of the Securities Market Law | Public offer and sale prohibited | Private placement to qualified/institutional investors | Application of the "private placement" exception clause |
Looking at this list, two important features can be identified:
First, the five Latin American countries account for four of the entries; together with Israel, they form the complete mosaic of "private placement exemptions." These countries share a commonality: they generally maintain securities registration regimes, yet all permit foreign funds to access qualified investors through private placements. The fund's strategy is not to obtain licenses in each jurisdiction, but to precisely delineate "only contacting those legally permitted"—each statement does the same thing: it removes itself from the scope of "public offering" while acknowledging that investors must independently assess the legal consequences.
Second, the cross-border statements exhibit a distinct "jurisdictional exclusion" pattern. For example, the Peru section explicitly states "neither this document, nor any other document related to the program has been submitted to or reviewed by the SMV"—a strategy of proactively disclosing "not having been reviewed." At the legal-text level, its function is to block investors from pursuing post-hoc liability on the grounds of "expectation of regulatory endorsement."
Interpreted from the perspective of distribution strategy, these statements act as a filter: they screen for investors with legal awareness and reduce the subsequent compliance burden. Notably, none of the statements mention other important markets (such as Singapore, Switzerland, and the UAE—common markets for British funds), suggesting that the fund's global distribution is selectively focused on specific regions rather than broadly rolled out.
III. The Hierarchical Structure of the Rating Ecosystem: From Global Benchmarks to Regional Endorsements
The rating information in the follow-up report exhibits a distinct "pyramid" structure:
| Rating Source | Type | Coverage | Methodological Focus | Target Audience |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morningstar Medalist Rating | Global, analyst-driven | Global mutual funds | Forward-looking assessment, based on analyst judgment rather than historical backtesting | Global investors |
| Rayner Spencer Mills Research | UK-based research firm | Funds distributed in the UK | Qualitative research, oriented toward intermediaries | UK market |
| FundCalibre | UK independent rating agency | UK retail-oriented funds | Curated fund list; rating framework emphasizes performance and risk control | UK investors |
| Synaptic Risk Rating | UK risk rating tool | Risk classifications used by UK financial advisers | Quantitative model-based risk profiling | UK financial advisers |
These four types of ratings do not have overlapping roles; rather, they provide information needed at different decision-making levels:
- Morningstar provides the international coordinate—its Medalist Rating system is "analyst-driven" rather than purely quantitative, making it more forward-looking than historical star ratings, as it reflects analysts' subjective judgment of manager capability. Notably, the rating coverage is 100%, indicating that the fund has been fully assessed by Morningstar analysts, rather than merely passing through quantitative scoring.
- Rayner Spencer Mills and FundCalibre serve the function of "trust transmission" within the UK distribution network. In a sales ecosystem dominated by UK IFAs (independent financial advisers), ratings from local research firms are important inputs to advisers' product-selection processes. The existence of such ratings effectively functions as a "whitelist" mechanism for including funds in UK distribution channels.
- Synaptic is entirely different—it does not evaluate fund quality but instead maps funds onto a risk-rating scale, serving financial advisers' asset-allocation processes. The presence of this rating on the page indicates that the fund regards "suitability" as a prerequisite for sales, rather than being an isolated "good product."
Looking deeper, the signal this combination of ratings sends to potential investors is: the fund has been validated simultaneously at three levels—global, UK domestic, and adviser tools. Each rating is accompanied by the standard disclaimer "not a recommendation to buy," yet the ratings simultaneously build a reference bridge for "professional advisers and intermediaries"—an endorsement strategy that is both safe and efficient within the UK retail distribution compliance framework.
In addition, the rating validity date is marked as "as at 31 May 2026," while the Factsheet cover date is "30 June 2026"—a one-month time gap. This is industry practice: ratings are updated monthly, and Factsheets are generated monthly, and their "lagged synchronization" ensures data stability. However, investors should note: ratings do not constitute any promise of future performance. The fact that this disclaimer appears alongside the contact information at the end of the document is quite telling.
4. The Dual-Track Architecture of Distribution Channels: Reading Signals from Contact Details
The design of the contact details at the end of the document subtly hints at the channel architecture:
| Channel Type | Phone/Email | Target Group | Geographic Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intermediary Enquiries | 0800 917 2113 (UK toll-free) | Financial advisers, intermediary platforms | UK domestic |
| Institutional Enquiries | +44 (0)131 275 2000 (international line) | Institutional investors, professional buy-side | Global |
This "dual-track" contact arrangement is no typographical coincidence. The 0800 number serves the UK's intermediary network, corresponding to the core ecosystem of UK retail distribution—namely IFAs and platform companies, rather than direct orders from ordinary retail investors; the international line corresponds to institutional investors (pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, etc.), whose investment sizes are typically large and whose sales process depends on one-on-one relationship management.
Combined with the switchboard number "Tel: +44 (0)131 275 2000" and the standard compliance notice "Your call may be recorded for training or monitoring purposes," the following signals emerge:
- The channel focus is on the UK: The UK domestic intermediary network is the primary sales driver, corroborating the presence of the three UK rating agencies mentioned earlier—RSMR, FundCalibre, and Synaptic.
- Institutional direct sales serve as a supplement: The international line covers global institutional clients, aligning with the multi-country compliance statements discussed earlier—given that the fund cannot be publicly offered in many jurisdictions, it can only reach qualified investors through institutional direct sales or private placement channels.
- The registered address is at Haymarket Square in Edinburgh: As a location in Scotland's financial center, this reflects the traditional layout of British asset management firms.
Going further, this dual-track structure is fully consistent with the "private placement exemption" logic discussed earlier: when a fund cannot publicly market itself in most global markets, the only effective growth path is "intermediary recommendation + institutional targeting"—the former leverages rating endorsements to acquire clients, while the latter relies on relationship networks for deeper cultivation. Thus, the bifurcation of contact channels is, in essence, the smallest observable window into the fund's global sales model.
5. The Closed-Loop Logic of Risk, Compliance, Ratings, and Channels
Reading the four sections of the follow-up report in combination, a complete "trust-building chain" can be distilled:
1. Risk disclosures delineate the investors' "informed boundary" — "you have been informed of all possible risks";
2. Multi-jurisdiction compliance statements delineate the legal "exemption boundary" — "we are open only to qualified investors";
3. Rating endorsements provide professional-level "proof of capability" — "we are recognized by third-party institutions across multiple dimensions";
4. The dual-track contact channels carry the actual "sales conversion" — "professional investors and advisors can reach us at any time."
More interestingly, there is a subtle tension among the four: risk disclosures amplify fear, ratings manufacture trust, compliance statements restrict access, and the setting up of contact channels opens access. This "push-pull" structure is precisely the complete psychological sales framework that a mature asset manager presents in a Factsheet — it does not seek to make everyone who sees the document buy, but rather to precisely single out the few investors who are genuinely qualified, willing, and able to purchase. Seen in this light, this follow-up report is not merely information disclosure, but a distilled text of global distribution strategy.