Chrysalis Inves Share Price (CHRY)

Https://www.professionalpensions.com/news/4530945/smart-pension-surpasses-10bn-assets-management

AGT AVI Global Trust half year report is worth reading they have a large holding here;

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AGT/half-year-financial-report-16b04icqxgytx07.html

Chrysalis Investments

Classification: Closed-ended Fund

% of net assets: 6.0%

Discount: 48%

% of investee company: 15.9%

Total return on position HY26 (local): -32.0%

Total return on position [HY26 (GBP): -32.0%

Contribution (GBP): -254bps

ROI since date of initial purchase: 1.2%

Having been a substantial positive contributor over AGT's previous financial year, Chrysalis ('CHRY') was our second largest detractor in the first half of this financial year.

While this was in part due to the poor performance of now-listed Klarna and a write-down at wefox, the bulk of the decline was due to discount widening as the shares moved from a 29% discount to 48%.

Initially, this seemed attributable to the shares being caught up in the AI disruption/tech sell off. In our view, CHRY's portfolio companies have little in common with the software as a service ('SaaS') businesses in the market's firing line. While Starling Bank, CHRY's largest holding, has a SaaS-style subsidiary called Engine which provides banking software to third-party clients, this is still a nascent part of Starling's current value (although it certainly does have the potential to grow into a more meaningful value driver). Furthermore, we do not expect businesses with such deep specialist domain knowledge, operating in arguably the most regulated and risk-averse industry, to have their business models disrupted by "DIY" tools.

It is a matter of public record that we have been engaged with the Board on the company's future, and as such we were supportive of the proposals announced in February 2026 that would see the company adopt an orderly realisation policy with no new investments being made. These proposals were approved by shareholders at a meeting in late-March. Ahead of this, the shares took another leg down when it was disclosed that the Board has so far been unable to reach an agreement with the existing management team on commercial terms for them to continue in their roles and that, if no agreement is reached, the company will adopt a self-managed structure. In the event of such an outcome, we are confident that the board has the necessary skills, mindset and experience to oversee the realisation process, particularly with the recent appointment of an AVI-proposed director, Sam Dobbyn.

We see scope for highly attractive prospective returns from here.

After the recent turmoil I have reviewed the situation with Chrysalis and the present price. I refuse to accept the stupid figures spouted by the BOD in their recent RNS's.

As of today the Market Cap of Chrysalis is approx £455m. Looking at the figures of the NAV as at 31 Dec; the position in Starling was £436m, SmartP £123.5m, wefox £56m, 3 others added £74m. Klarna & cash totalled 128.8m - now I have adjusted that to £71m today considering buyback costs & Klarna share price. So todays value would be approx £760m.

Why does the market consider there being £305m risk in the portfolio? Starling/SmartP/wefox & cash look fairly risk free and maybe even undervalued.

My calculation is that allowing for a winddown cost of 10% & no further growth; this company has a 15% per annum compound growth to closure.

Please comment if you have data & arguments. DYOR

Thank you oldpabear, that's excellent about the origins of the trust - all completely new to me.

I agree entirely about the short-term activism pulling the rug from this trust's future. Personally I think the IA did all the right things when the writing was on the wall a couple of years ago and I would back them further now.

OMG, how does the name Woodford keep cropping up in UK growth investing? For my sins, I'm also in INOV (formerly SUPP, formally WPCT), which is where Woodford put a load of the illiquid investments from his open-ended fund into. It's easily my worst investment. In the case of that one, it should and is being wound up. The Schroder Juniors, as I call them, failed to make a go of it partly because the Woodford legacy picks were so odious and partly for the same reasons this one failed. Apart from not understanding liquidity, Woodford really was a cr*p investor. He has a blog now on youtube. I watched it the other day. He sprouts such simplistic rubbish, I do wonder how he got so far.

Anyway, INOV, CHRY, there aren't many UK early growth investors left not being wound up.

Just to add to the conversation. This lost it's way (my viewpoint) when certain active shareholders pushed to stop new investments.

Chrysallis was the baby of the Advisors - starting as part of their OEICS whilst at OMGI. After the MBO form OMGI to Merian It was spun out from OEICS to Inv Trust after the Woodford scandal to get the OEICS unlisted holdings down. The Trust never fitted the Jupiter model (after Merian almost collapsed) and the board supported the exit of the Inv Advisors from Jupiter.

The Advisors are the brains behind many successful investments but have been hanstrung by the board & Active shareholders in recent years. It is interesting how the board RNS quotes original investment share price and totally ignores NAV. The statement also cites lack of investment by the IA in Ops & Compliance infrastructure - what start-up would invest when the board is stopping any further investments (& therefore business continuation).

My opinion is that NAV matters - what I invested at is history: if I don't like it then sell. What is happening here is short term activism pulling the rug from the fund so they can achieve a 'quicker' profit. I agree that the BOD do not have the knowledge/ability to run the assets for optimal shareholder value.

Take a look at the investment level by the BOD - they should be ashamed.