This UK fund has badly lagged its peers: in the past year it returned 8.5% versus a 17.4% average, and over five years it made almost nothing. The manager spreads money widely—the top ten holdings are only 14% of assets. The largest is TSMC (1.9%), followed by ASML (1.8%) and NVIDIA (1.5%), but these big tech names didn’t prevent the poor results. The fund also holds about 20% bonds. It suits investors who can stomach losses and a 5+ year horizon.
The Baillie Gifford Managed Fund report introduces the fund's overview: the objective is five-year rolling capital growth, investing in equities, bonds, and cash. Regional teams select stocks, while credit and global bond teams manage bonds and actively allocate assets. As of June 30, 2026, the fund
As of 30 June 2026, the fund returned 3.5% over six months and 8.5% over one year, both significantly behind the IA Mixed Investment 40-85% Shares sector medians (7.7% and 17.4% respectively); the 5-year annualised return was 0.2%, ranked 187/187, bottom.
| Period | Fund (Class B -Acc) | Sector median | Excess |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months | 3.5% | 7.7% | -4.2 pp |
| 1 year | 8.5% | 17.4% | -8.9 pp |
| 3 years (annualised) | 8.6% | 11.6% | -3.0 pp |
| 5 years (annualised) | 0.2% | 6.0% | -5.8 pp |
Rankings by period: 6 months 220/228, 1 year 212/224, 3 years 179/203, 5 years 187/187 (bottom).
Discrete annual performance (as of 30 June):
| Annual period | Fund | Sector median |
|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 | -28.3% | -6.4% |
| 2022-23 | 9.7% | 3.0% |
| 2023-24 | 9.4% | 11.9% |
| 2024-25 | 7.9% | 5.8% |
| 2025-26 | 8.5% | 17.4% |
In the most recent year (2025-26), the fund lagged the sector median by 8.9 percentage points, the largest single-year gap in five years.
The fund's holdings are highly diversified. The top ten holdings account for only 14.2% in aggregate, active share is 75%, and annual turnover is 26%. Equity exposure is approximately 77%, bonds approximately 19%, and cash and derivatives 3.8%.
Top ten equity holdings:
| Position | % of fund assets |
|---|---|
| TSMC | 1.9% |
| ASML | 1.8% |
| Samsung Electronics | 1.7% |
| Amazon.com | 1.6% |
| NVIDIA | 1.5% |
| Roche | 1.4% |
| AstraZeneca | 1.2% |
| Meta Platforms | 1.0% |
| HSBC | 1.0% |
| DoorDash | 1.0% |
Geographic/asset allocation:
| Region/asset class | % |
|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 19.2% |
| Europe (ex-UK) | 19.0% |
| North America | 18.9% |
| Overseas bonds | 11.4% |
| Developed Asia-Pacific | 11.1% |
| Emerging markets | 8.6% |
| UK bonds | 7.6% |
| Index-linked | 0.3% |
| Cash and derivatives | 3.8% |
Fund size £3,869.63m, annual management fee 0.40%, ongoing charge 0.43%, historical yield 1.69%, no UK sustainable investment label.
The continuation clearly reveals a core compliance strategy: precise jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction adaptation under a global private placement exemption framework. This structure is not a mere pile-up of disclaimers but a sophisticated piece of compliance engineering. Analysing the disclosure differences across Colombia, Peru, Chile, Mexico and Singapore yields the following patterns.
| Jurisdiction | Core legal basis | Investor eligibility restrictions | Disclosure stance | Key risk warnings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia | Not registered with the National Registry of Securities and Issuers | Implicitly aligned with "institutional investor" eligibility | Unregistered status prohibits public offer; but allows unilateral attribution of compliance responsibility for foreign exchange/tax regulations | Strong geographical risk isolation: requires investors to acknowledge themselves as the sole party responsible for compliance |
| Peru | Not registered with the Public Registry of the Securities Market | Institutional investors only, with an explicit requirement that ineligible parties "must not participate" | Document not reviewed by SMV; proactively excludes non-qualified investors | Uses reverse exclusion wording for the investor scope, strengthening legal binding force |
| Chile | General Standard NCG N°336 | Investor eligibility not set out in the statement, only emphasises that it "does not constitute investment advice" | Must disclose that it is not supervised by the CMF and has no public information obligations; governing document is in Spanish | Explicitly characterises the document as "non-assessment/non-recommendation," severing any link to investment advisory conduct |
| Mexico | Private placement exemption under Article 8 of the Securities Market Law | Qualified and institutional investors | Double negative: not registered + public sale prohibited; cites the specific statutory provision (Art. 8) to secure the exemption | Relies on the express exemption in domestic law, rather than the fund's own "offshore" status, to define legality |
| Singapore | Section 304 of the SFA | Institutional investors | On the MAS "restricted scheme list"; declares the document is not a prospectus and restricts the scope of distribution | Specifies the "no distribution" clause down to the "direct or indirect" level to guard against resale risk |
Key Observation: The five matrices form a full spectrum in terms of "investor eligibility" — from the broadest standard targeting "qualified investors" (Israel) to the narrower category of "institutional investors" (Peru, Singapore). Chile, however, sits outside this spectrum, applying entirely through the local regulator's general exemption (NCG 336).
The ratings section in the continuation appears to be a marketing credibility booster, but on deeper analysis it constitutes a second risk-transmission mechanism, independent of the compliance disclosure system. Notably, the five rating agencies (Dynamic Planner, Synaptic, Rayner Spencer Mills Research, Defaqto, EV) all completed their ratings before the cut-off date (31 May 2026), yet the depth and transparency of the information disclosed differ markedly:
This disclosure imbalance is itself informative in a commercial context: the underlying quantitative ratings represent only possibilities under specific scenarios; purchase decisions should not rely on ratings alone, and the involvement of a professional adviser remains a key line of defence.
The continuation closes with "Contact Information + Copyright Notice," but this section should not be misread as a simple directory. It reveals the ultimate legal and compliance interface through which the fund delivers information to investors:
From a broader legal-functional perspective, this continuation of the "Introduction" actually accomplishes three key tasks beyond the transmission of information:
1. Risk gate: by setting entry conditions such as "qualified investor" and "institutional investor", it physically isolates non-compliant individuals at the source;
2. Legal evidence: the public disclosure of the corresponding relationships with regulators in each jurisdiction (such as CMF, SMV, MAS) provides written evidence for subsequent judicial determinations under the relevant local jurisdiction;
3. Reputational firewall: disclosing negative facts such as "unregistered" and "unsupervised" in a straightforward, matter-of-fact manner both satisfies the principle of "adequate disclosure" and dilutes any future opportunity for allegations of "material omission" in the event of a dispute.
In summary, this "Introduction" section is developed entirely along the dual main lines of "risk disclosure and compliance isolation" in offshore private placements. It is Baillie Gifford's compliance template in the cross-context of common law and civil law. Its rigour and degree of structuring (segmentation by country, with legal provisions cited precisely down to article and chapter level) far surpass those of conventional fund documents, indirectly reflecting the extreme prudence with which a large active manager treats legal liability.