Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video 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.
Tambo210 - I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I meant.
The phrase "lies, damned lies & statistics" isn't generally used to accuse someone of lying. But of selectively trotting out statistics to back up an (often shaky) argument. That was my intention anyway, but apologies if it came across otherwise.
Whilst you never denied my points about SMT's highly profitable Meta trades, you completely failed to mention them, preferring instead only to accentuate the negatives.
Your post said - "trace back to anywhere in the first half of 2020, and extrapolate to today, and they still missed out on some impressive gains. META has been generating a ton of cash. Why would you not buy that stock back sooner?"
Exiting at around the $230 mark three and a half years ago wasn't such a bad move, when Meta's share price has been highly volatile since then. Yes, they could have achieved more. But as gotoutjustintime rightly points out, they'll have reinvested Meta's proceeds elsewhere. Possibly earning investors a lot more than by staying put an additional three and a half years.
As I mentioned previously, there's no real point in continuing endless posts between us, as it's unlikely we'll get anywhere. So the one piece of advice I'll take from you is to add you to my short filter list & have done.
"Insider Trading That Is Legal
An important thing to emphasize here is that insiders do not always have their hands tied. Insiders can (and do) buy and sell stock in their own company legally all of the time; their trading is restricted and deemed illegal only at certain times and under certain conditions."
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/061202.asp#:~:text=Insider%20Trading%20That%20Is%20Legal,-An%20important%20thing&text=Insiders%20can%20(and%20do)%20buy,be%20convicted%20of%20insider%20trading.
Tambo - my understanding is that directors can purchase on the open market (outwith any closed periods) as long as they don't have any price sensitive info, before it is made public.
Are insiders allowed to make discretionary purchases of SMT on the open market?
Good afternoon SMT holders
Jeez...this board has lost the compass needle.
SMT seems to bring out the worse in people..
My advice...if you aren't happy holding..just SELL OUT
Seriously it's not worth the hassle...
Peace Folks
Lordloadsoflolly - " once again lies" How was I lying? I never denied what you added in my previous message.
"But the sooner SMT clears 810p & you sell out, the better as far as I'm concerned." - so who put you in charge of the board? Unless you're here to 'Raaa Raaa Raaa' the trust, you should not be admitted? Cleanse the board.
Why wait until 810p? You and your followers can just mute me.
Tambo210 - once again lies, damned lies & statistics I'm afraid.
What you FAIL to mention is that SMT was an EARLY investor in Meta back at IPO stage in May 2012. Then, the share price was $38. SMT eventually sold this holding in June 2020, when Meta's share price hovered around the $230 mark.
So roughly SIXFOLD growth in 8 years.
In the three and a half years since June 2020, Meta's share price has fluctuated dramatically - between about $90 & $378. So yes, with 20:20 vision SMT could have sold out for more. But they could equally have sold out for a lot less. Personally, I'll take SIXFOLD growth in 8 years. Not sure quite what you're expecting. But the sooner SMT clears 810p & you sell out, the better as far as I'm concerned.
So here's an interesting argument in how SMT is run.
In December, SMT just bought back into Meta. It dumped it somewhere in the first 6 months of 2020.
You'd think.....'phew! They've dodged that knife when in 2021, the SP dropped from $350+ to sub $100 over 12months." They then missed out on gains to where it is today. Timing when to catch a falling knife is an art, which I'm woefully unsuccessful at.
But trace back to anywhere in the first half of 2020, and extrapolate to today, and they still missed out on some impressive gains.
META has been generating a ton of cash. Why would you not buy that stock back sooner?
Tambo - I'm all for complaining when it's justified but I can't understand the logic of your chosen timeframes when much of the market has faced the same issues as SMT. I feel for those who are forced to sell any investment at a loss but, given time, I still have every faith in SMT.
Tambo210 - no point in constantly arguing the toss with you, as I don't think it'll change anyone's mind. So this'll be my last response for now.
Suffice to say, you seem to be basing most of your views on performance over the past 2 years. Indeed, your latest post refers to "24 months of decline". Whilst undeniable, it's also largely irrelevant unless you bought into SMT without reading their Key Facts document. This document clearly highlights potential volatility & suggests a minimum 5 year hold.
Thefrogster - What's wrong with being harsh? Unless you put pressure the managers and let them know we're not satisfied is 24 months of decline, they'll assume everything is okay and happily collect fees.
They don't work for peanuts.
These guys collect high fees and high bonuses regardless of the fund rising or declining. BG will hide behind the need to 'retain' talent to continue to increase their comp.
Its very British not to complain. Is that the culture here?
Basically, the team will reap their comp due to apathy of their investors, regardless of performance?
Tambo - I think you're being unjustly harsh on the team at SMT. Would you be saying the same things if the fund was flying high? I agree that neither of them came across well during the November '23 interview but that doesn't mean they don't know what they or doing or have no strategy. As has been said countless times here, growth stocks have suffered recently and other well respected funds and ITs have also lost ground. This trust will shine again - I have every faith and more inclined to buy more than to sell.
lordloadsoflolly - you know my opinion (so you'll probably raise your eyebrows)
i still think the pair of them need a good talking to from the board of bg following their interview in nov '23. they lacked conviction in their answers. as i said before, their response to the question regarding ilmn showed they were behind the curve on that and actually proved they're not researching and discussing their holdings internally as well as they should. there's only 30 holdings to discuss. how many staff do you think smt has under slater and burns' leadership?
i doubt their actively researching their holdings.....just being leaders and in effect, the fall guys for the decisions and performance. if the performance is sub-optimal, they will hopefully have a word with the corresponding team member(s) and perhaps rally round to support them on their research and decision making.
douglas brodie is another manager who is having a rotten time at the moment there. given his background, the fund is heavily weighted towards healthcare.....and hence global discovery has been one of the worst performers of the last 2 years. (i actually believe they're going to close this fund soon and say "thanks for the fees, but tough ****" to the investors!)
LLL. As you say it's impossible to assess someone's worth by their presentation. An actor may appear a likeable person, only to be a less pleasant personality in real life (or vice versa). We are not privvy to his working ability or qualities beyond those we perceive from his public presentation.
Autistic people (for example, we are all autistic to at least a very small degree), come across as often withdrawn, shy, unintelligent, lacking vibrancy... I could go on).. Think Albert Einstein for one of hundreds of examples. I could go on.
Its just not straightforward or scientific in any way to infer it worthy of assessment.
One thing I have always wondered about BG is how they actually operate internally? Normally a fund house will buy and sell the underlying assets in the stock exchange but in the case of BG they have a whole raft of funds with quite a significant overlap in holdings so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the assets are actually held in internal nominee accounts and traded amongst the managers. This would have the effect of reducing external trading costs. Any thoughts?
Meconopsis - I fully agree with the point you make in Slater's case.
That said, time served isn't always a good indicator of ability.
Most of us can probably point to someone at work who's climbed the greasy pole & clung on for ages despite being utterly useless.
Whilst Slater seems pretty switched on, I'm not so sure about Burns. To me he doesn't present as well or come across as particularly dynamic. I guess he might excel on the research side though. What do others think?
Appointed joint manager in 2015 after 5 years as deputy - so joined SMT in 2010. So 13 years:
- 5 as deputy
- 7 as joint manager
- 1 year as sole manager
23 years working in the investment company.
It really is hard to see how he’s at all qualified to do his job… ;)
""Tom joined Baillie Gifford in 2000 and became a partner of the firm in 2012. After serving as deputy manager for five years, Tom was appointed joint manager of Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust in 2015." He then took over as manager in 2022.
So, that's 12 years working on SMT."
Don't you mean 12 working as a partner for BG?
SMT for 8.
Still non-negligible I agree.
"I can't defend the indefensible that Slater's track record since his joining the trust to date"
It's worth picking this up....
"Tom joined Baillie Gifford in 2000 and became a partner of the firm in 2012. After serving as deputy manager for five years, Tom was appointed joint manager of Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust in 2015." He then took over as manager in 2022.
So, that's 12 years working on SMT.
You make is sound like he just arrived.
Anyone concerned about performance here needs to look at the long term performance ,10 years brilliant and short term 6 months brilliant.It has a risk score(FE) of 225 compared to FTSE All Share 100 so be in no doubt about its risk profile.But outstanding performance only comes with risk and no long term winner has fared well over last 3 years because since December 2021 risk has been avoided until last few months.If you want to succeed buy a portfolio of outstanding long term winners and stick through thick and thin.Ignore the big winners and most markets have gone nowhere for 20 years
Tambo210 - to insinuate similarities between SMT & Woodford by saying "you can't hide behind a disclaimer and operate as a wild west fund" is just plain misleading. And you well know it.
Woodford always marketed his income fund as a RELATIVELY stable investment offering a decent yield. Yet he then went off & invested a sizeable chunk into something completely different - unlisted companies & sectors he had little-to-no experience in. The rest, as they say, is history.
SMT hasn't hidden behind any disclaimer. Its Key Facts document spells out the relatively high risk & volatility inherent in its investment strategy, recommending a minimum 5 year hold. If investors choose not to read/heed this advice, how can it be SMT's problem?
"If you feel it's a buggered investment with the propensity to belly flop at any time I'm interested why you are not cutting your losses and selling now rather than waiting for £8.10?
What gives you the faith you think it will get to £8.10 rather than £9 (for example)? Over the last 40 years I have always sold at a point of lack of faith and got the cash into something I consider a better short term bet. It has always been the correct decision so I'm interested as to your reasoning. "
I completely agree with these points. I've just been looking at how I did in 2023 and each time I exited a position because of lack of faith in management it was a good one. (So far, the companies may recover.)
In truth, I don't understand the negativity here. SMT are known for trying to get in early to unlisted companies and generally buy and hold. That's always going to bring greater volatility in the short term. It's all very well saying that they missed an opportunity to buy MSFT, APPL, GOOGL, etc, but the investment approach here has been to find the "7" before they become "magnificent" - rather than after. That they were holding NVIDA and Tesla when everyone was focused on FAANG shows foresight. The holding in ASML shows real foresight - it's the very definition of high moat.
The bigger issue for SMT than it's share price is the discount to NAV, which has hampered apparent performance or created a buying opportunity - depending on whether your selling or buying.
Points fair enough Tambo12, but how was Slater supposed to create stellar results in the market conditions he inherited. Sure the trust did worse than other similar one, but haven't we discussed those here over the years to exhaustion?
300 was touted by a few on here during the worst periods of fall, but I always ignored that possibility on the basis of my own assessment.
Was I correct? Well, I have been up to date and was I to believe that was possible anytime soon Id be selling.
I'm not because SMT is actually enjoying better popularity than any of my other holdings today (plus has risen more on average since around a month ago).
As stated, each to their own.
If you feel it's a buggered investment with the propensity to belly flop at any time I'm interested why you are not cutting your losses and selling now rather than waiting for £8.10?
What gives you the faith you think it will get to £8.10 rather than £9 (for example)? Over the last 40 years I have always sold at a point of lack of faith and got the cash into something I consider a better short term bet. It has always been the correct decision so I'm interested as to your reasoning.
Quid pro quo re the questions...
Walp. I actually consider 650p quite high.
Was expecting a number near 300p.
I saw a lot of commentators talk about PCT...but when I looked at the holdings, I wasn't convinced. But one thing to bear in mind the difference (as I'm sure you're aware ) between an OEIC and Investment trust is the OEIC tends to follow the NAV with greater correlation. The Investment trust is an open market purchase and there's a degree of sentiment in the volatility.
Perhaps that's why L&G Global tech fund has done better than SMT if we're focussing on technology umbrella.
LLOL - Yes...I'm aware of the disclaimer Meconopsis pasted.
I can't defend the indefensible that Slater's track record since his joining the trust to date hasn't produced stellar returns. I can't hide that fact. The reason I'm looking to exit is their performance during this 24 month down period. I mean ILMN is a classic example of being behind the curve. If you've followed sequencing companies for the last 5 years, you'll know that something has been wrong since 2020...yes during COVID when they shot up. Yet Slater and co chose to wait until the Fall of '23 to wind down because there had been too much turmoil in the past few years.....Trying to buy PACB and failing was an indication something was wrong.
I'm keeping on eye on Northvolt. The whole battery/fuel-space is suffering a little with cash burn. As a result, NV issued a 1.2bn buck convertible in August 23. They'lll burn through that. There needs to be a better subsidy mechanism in order for this industry to get off the ground.
MRNA is a 2025 story and beyond. I'm actually waiting to buy the stock if it hits $60.
As the size of the fund increases, you can't hide behind a disclaimer and operate as a wild west fund. That's why Woodford failed. He relied on his past performance to draw investors in. The new fund he started operated differently yet had billions invested......You can't just say "Sorry guys...you were naive!"
Anyway, as you know, I'm exiting at 810p.
Perfectly put LLOL