We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Quite right that with SP where it is anybody who invested in GROW at or after IPO in 2016 has lost money -expect the management. And in a sector that by all accounts has grown nicely (well above general market) since 2016.
I think part of this underperformance of the SP is just sentiment leveraged by the black box nature of the retail wrapper. I also think NAV calculations have been overly conservative which in good times is “petrol in the tank” resulting in SP premiums over NAV/share but in bad times leverages dark moods and reverse animal spirits.
For my money I an not even beginning to sell or diversify until we are 11.82 again however long that takes. I don’t see where the structural damage to the sector or the portfolio has been to justify the discount. As we did following the COVID recovery repricing once sentiment changes can be quick.
However, if one looks at NAV/share increases alone it has not done so well. GROW state 20% growth over the cycle which of course is compounded so NAV/share should be 4 to 5 times 2016.
On 3/2017, first full AR after IPO, Nav was 3.70 per share. After Forward and share placing I estimate it as 6.71, growth of 81.43% or 8.88% CAGR.
The external carry was £5.6M at 3/2017 and now its £95.3M thats a CAGR of 49.83% p.a. The share options CAGR is 46.7%p.a.
Valuations is one part of the story with GROW but the only place there has been real wealth since IPO is to the management. It is an absolute disgrace. The Board and large shareholders are asleep and incompetent. This sort of biased rewards does listed private equity no favours. The relationship between the Board & management is far too cozy. The ISIF is asleep and Blackrock have it stuffed in so many ETFs noone is looking at the fundamentals. Baillie giffords time horizon is now a lifetime for any payoff and so they cant throw stones as they are not performing great. This needs a very fundamental fix. as a shareholder you are really only funding the wealth accumulation of management in a very blatant way. Wakey wakey shareholders.
Investing.com may be nothing more than AI generated assumptions projecting losses incurred in the last 2 years of NAV/share too far into the future. Core portfolio continues to grow sales (themselves with healthy margins) at a 50% clip which is the main metric of valuations of unlisted shares that do not have a recent funding round to establish a market price for an unlisted share. Only need a stable (not falling) market for rapid NAV/share increases for GROW to occur and with that the big discount to NAV/share for our SP.
So unless a significant % of the core portfolio is going bust (no evidence of that) “losses” will end soon. Even Graphcore the most challenged of all our core portfolio in terms of viability is probably work what we have it for on the books or more.
We have been “losing money” only by using some pretty conservative industry valuations on core portfolio. Also as triple point indicate peak trough of valuations phase over.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/08/revolut-investor-slashes-fintech-valuation-5bn/
Irish time report that GROW have a 5% stake in Revolut. GROW in half yearly report Revolut on the books of 55.2 m pounds. That implies that GROW value REVOLUT at 11bn about half of a recent revaluation by Triple Point.
According to Investing.com (pro version) the fair value is 197, I expect the SP will go near or below that in the short term
They are still losing alot of money, analysts forecast this year’s loss will be over £130m
Https://techcrunch.com/sponsor/great-britain-northern-ireland/has-the-uk-become-the-best-place-in-europe-to-invest-in-tech/
So why is our SP at 8 year lows?
Just had a look and in 22 perkbox had sales of £39M, up 21% on previous. Grow at same level and pro-forma sales £57m for 2024. Perk valued at £140M thats 2.5x sales. Not the 20,30,40 times of the some of the others. of course I accept the TAM and technology of some of the others much more impressive but again just goes to show private valuation ranges can be vey very wide. For me, 10x is my max as a multiple of turnover, when we get to 20-25 I struggle but then I am more a public market guy.
Yes but molten first invested in perkbox in 2016. The issue with molten is the £128m invested in FY 21 and £311m invested in Fy 22. What does it say that the entity they first invested in 2016 comes out at slightly above breakeven. I have no issue with Molten's valuation per se, as I said earlier they are valuing according to recalibrated recent fund raises but the public markets are just not accepting the private market valuations. Different investors, different valuations and thats where we are.
The Perkbox valuation seems to have been pretty accurate as the sale was slightly above what it was held at
It certainly wasn't sold for a third of that value, which is what the SP valued it at.
JPM et all have agreed a £150m RCF against a £1.3bn private equity portfolio, a trained monkey could do that. There is no information content on the appropriate valuation on them putting that facility in place. Auditors no little about valuation in the real world, its not what they do. they check there is a process and valid inputs which as I have explained there can never be as they dont have a long term IV input, so its really driven by comparable markt deals in the private space, or in other words a herd instinct. When you asre in the realm of putting multiples at 20x, 30x, 40x revenue or whatever you want it is not science, it can never be. At the end of day it comes down to what these private market investors are prepared to pay on the funding date for a potentially large TAM.
As for the valuations the lenders and auditors have all had a look, especially since the Forward deal.
The lenders can evaluate quarterly.
If there are companies like Ledger that raised at same valuation as previously and others like Isar that did so at higher valuations then that can be taken as an indicator as well.
As for returning cash I believe it would be irresponsible to do so without looking also to scale back debt.
I am talking more about introducing dividends or buy backs as an option rather than point blank refusing.
They got a recent unexpected sale of Perkbox. Probably about £20m.
Stick it in a pot. Wait for another decent trade sale. For example, M-Files, which is profitable on 100m plus revenue. Maybe a few million from Graphcore. And then sell down some Revolut on the secondary. There were buyers recently for Stripe employee shares so there would be plenty of buyers for Revolut.
As I said activist investors and hedge funds are starting to sniff around holdings in unlisted companies.
The board need to get a bit more realistic rather than threatening to delist (as per annual report) if an activist fund gets involved.
Senator - you remind me very much of a frequent poster Sage on this board.
You make some good points but it is difficult to address them as a lot of things are jumbled together in one impenetrable paragraph.
Regarding Aiven. Their last accounts showed 67m Euro revenue. This was double the previous year. It also occurred when there was a significant downturn in the cloud market, which has since relaxed.
The market is valuing the MV holding at a very approximate 28m dollars. MV wrote down their holding from the 3bn valuation from £105m to £85m. So they have it valued at about 2.4bn. But divide that by the MV discount and it's seen to be worth about 800m.
Aiven has a close comparable listed stock in Confluent. Current sales to price ratio of 13.
If we conservatively assume latest year revenue of 100m then a valuation of 1.3bn would be fair.
If they have had a better year then this would of course be higher.
Rapid revenue increases are quite possible as UI Path doubled and even tripled revenue when it was taking off.
The point is that the current SP is reflecting a further discount.
I had big doubts about the Aiven valuation but I have started to get a better feeling about it.
Confluent say the Team is about 60bn dollars and growing at about 10% a year.
I am less sure about Thought Machine although there is talk of them looking to IPO and I doubt that would be likely if they were doing worse than previous years.
I believe this will make a new low in the short term. FTSE is at all time high and yet this still sitting at 230s.
If it doesnt follow FTSE on the way up, it will certainly follow it on the way down.
Good luck to all
When you buy a Pref share the value has two components; the liquidation value and the probability of that and a Leap option with strike equal to the conversion price. Valuing that Leap option can never be precise as we have no market implied volatility input. Valuing the Prefs on basis everything is converted is not the correct way to do it because at the date of the report they havent converted. when the FCA do their review this will become more of an issue. This is to say nothing about the differnt priorities of different classes of prefs, can they vote or not, what liquidation preference they have, do they convert 1:1....there are loads of issues and I know that not one shareholder, including Blackrock and Irelands strategic fund has the answers to all this. This is why when you hear Mr Wilkinson talk about valuation it is so vague as he knows he cant answer properly because of NDAs. private company valuation is more fiction than fact im afraid. The last set of accounts from Thought Machine had sales of £42M and an operating loss of £73M. Last valuation was circa £2.2bn. Lets assume 2023 sales are £120M, thats still 20x Sales. Is that the right number? what about 10x, maybe 40x. Who really knows. what I do know is the FCA wont solve the difficulty of the material judgement behind private valuations and therefore it is fickle and when it moves can move a lot. Time might sort everything, but it will take time.
Thank you EyesOfBlue, a very useful breakdown.
In the meanwhile, I have added another chunk today. Time will determine the folly or wisdom of this decision.
Nothing demonstrates the difficulty of private valuation as well as Aiven, the third largest holding. May 21 post money valuation $800M, Oct 21 $2bn, May 22 $3bn. Grow has it at £83m, my guess is they own circa 5%. So they are valuing it correctly at a discount to last round but the private market was on steroids in late 2021 early 2022 and as you can see from all PE listed valuations, SMT good liquid ex at 60% discount on privates if you assume their large publics deserve no discount, MSFT et all. The public markets just think the private market is way over the top, that is why there is a log jam in the capital recycling. On secondaries its a buyers market not a sellers as everyone knows this. Grow spent £311m in21/22 financial year, the largest amount in their history and realised £126m and yes got a £363m FV movement. They are now paying the price. Because they invest mostly in Pref shares which can have many different terms and because of NDAs cannot reveal all the details (and the detailed terms affect valuation) they and shareholders are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs. The information asymmetry makes these unsuitable public vehicles, its that simple. Also they cant return capital until they get much much bigger, otherwise they get diluted when the companies come back for funding which they do regularly in the A/B and seed stage. They have about £70m cash and undrawn £50M to support a portfolio of £1.3bn, there is no chance of a capital return or dividend and they cant sell at a fair price. This is why the people in the market describe conditions as among the worst ever but they caused it themselves by being too exuberant in 2021 and 2022.
I think a lot more pressure needs to be put on the board to return capital to shareholders.
The portfolio is now incredibly bloated and yet they continue to make new investments and refuse to consider anything like buybacks or special dividends.
As an example, Chrysalis are saying that if there is a successful IPO of Klarna, they will use the cash to pay a dividend.
I think there needs to be much more focus on paying down the debt and getting into a position to reward shareholders for their patience.
We need an activist investor to get on board as at present the board are like kids camping out in a candy store.
If they really think their Revolut holding is worth £75m then get selling it on the secondary VC market. They have previously said this could be possible if they were at risk of breaching debt covenants.
Shareholders should have got a payday from the UI Path IPO, which was a massive return. Instead the funds were invested at the peak of the bubble and basically burnt so that MV were left having to raise capital with significant dilution.
Great link thanks
At some point market will revalue grow. probably sharply
No idea if this link will work, but if not it’s all on his Substack blog / website.
https://theoakbloke.substack.com/p/grow-green-shoots?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
The worry for me is not the prospect of de-listing but why investors are not really interested in tomorrows winners. In a sense, chucking money into the winners today is easy peasy but will only last as long as the merry-go-round has momentum. At some point the next swing or slide or springy toy will have focus.
An investment in GROW is, right now, considered as something of a poor decision, the dog in the market complete with fleas and quite possibly rabies. The world is consumed with the prospect of AI and provided that AI or Machine Learning or some other vague and perhaps ambiguous term is used, then investors HAVE to include it in their holdings.
And so, those listings attract buyers - a bit like flies to a fresh turd - chuck in some delicious fruit and the investors go wild - the reality is that the resulting company is still a turd.
Right now, it seems that the price of the assets in which GROW has interest assumes that most will go bust. Yeah, they might, but not all at the same time and certainly there might even be some that are disposed and profits banked or losses contained.
Perhaps an outcome for investors is putting a "for sale notice" to attract a big fish such as III to mitigate risk or expand breadth of focus?
Thanks for the clarification.
Sales growth of cord portfolio is in all annual and half yearly reports. it can be misleading at the company level as fast growth from a low base less impressive than fast growth from a large base.
never the less a key kpi as it averages in the slow burners as well as high growth. they said in methodology they weight it by company nav so meaningful average
Where do you get your sales growth from Steph? I have pulled the accounts for a few and have only seen that in some non core, but then again the accounts look back to 23 year ends so would be not the most up to date position. I would like to understand it relative to the size of the investment so I know this is not cherry picking unrepresentative numbers. Did they claim 50% revenue increase last year as well?