Time to tell US raider Saba Capital to get lost - again

By the Editorial Team · Tuesday, October 13, 2026

Saba Capital, holding nearly 30% of Baillie Gifford US Growth Trust shares, is pushing to appoint three board nominees at the trust’s October 23 meeting after two failed attempts to influence governance. This effort, framed as a bid for a full cash exit near net asset value, raises concerns among advisers and brokers about Saba’s motives and the potential risks of shifting control without a clear management plan.

Saba Capital, a New York-based hedge fund led by Boaz Weinstein, is once again at the center of a contentious battle with shareholders of the Baillie Gifford US Growth Trust (ticker: USA), a FTSE 250 investment trust. The hedge fund, holding nearly 30% of the trust’s shares, is seeking to appoint three of its nominees to the board at the trust’s annual meeting scheduled for October 23. This move follows two previous unsuccessful attempts by Saba to influence the trust’s governance over the past 18 months.

The Baillie Gifford US Growth Trust, which invests in high-growth US companies including key names in the artificial intelligence sector—such as Anthropic, Databricks, OpenAI, SpaceX, and Stripe—has delivered an annualized return of 16.7% since its inception in 2018. This performance surpasses that of the S&P 500 over the same period and ranks the trust within the top 10% of UK investment companies. Despite the strong long-term results, the trust’s share price has experienced volatility, largely due to fluctuations in AI sector valuations in late 2022, contributing to a modest discount of approximately 3% relative to net asset value (NAV).

Saba Capital’s proposal, announced ahead of the vote, calls for the trust to provide all shareholders with a “100% cash exit at or near NAV,” which Saba frames as a long-overdue liquidity event. However, the existing board reports having already made an offer to Saba that closely matches this valuation, which the hedge fund declined. Critics argue that Saba’s true intentions may extend beyond the liquidity proposal, possibly aiming to replace the current management with Saba or to integrate the trust into a Saba-managed vehicle. Observers also note that Saba’s principal funds in the US trade at wider discounts to asset value than the Baillie Gifford trust, raising questions about its motivations.

Concerns have been raised about the independence of the nominees Saba seeks to install. One is an employee of Saba Capital, while the other two have been linked to multiple campaigns led by Weinstein’s hedge fund. Brokers have expressed skepticism about Saba’s strategy, describing the proposal as conditional and non-binding with no clear plan regarding future management, governance, or investment strategy. One broker stated that shareholders would be taking a risk by granting board control without a defined roadmap, likening it to voting first and learning the consequences later.

Shareholder advisers emphasize the importance of maintaining the trust’s current direction, which they view as successful despite some short-term volatility, and caution that not voting could effectively hand control to Saba. With Saba’s sizable stake combined with an additional 7.7% held by a presumed ally, Sessa Capital, shareholders are urged to participate actively in the upcoming vote. For investors using platforms such as Hargreaves Lansdown, AJ Bell, and Interactive Investor, the effective deadline to submit votes may come before the official meeting date, underscoring the urgency of the situation.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.