Member Info for Couerdelion

How is everything in the portfolio looking good. I can't find one thing looking good.

I'd agree but the results were over a week ago. Why would the SP start moving today?

Oh dear, I guess then my expectation of a 300% increase in SP by next year is even more unlikely.

Btw I'm sure there's a way to get to next year using an infinite series.

How about tomorrow?

Carondean, I too made that mistake. But the way I read it, the March CFO sale was to cover the tax; the sale on Friday was the remainder of that share award

Tough call but I think I'll wait to the high 60's before I cash in any profits.

Incidentally, I thought the results were fairly good and expect the market will agree sooner or later, preferably sooner

For a share that has done nothing for 10 years, I'm very please with the 30% annualised return it has given me over the last 18 months.

Once again the shares are on the move a quite small volume. Has anyone seen any news out there?

I fear that the words of the Sage of Omaha might be at risk of being taken out of context but the analogy is fairly weak. If you can buy shares and have an insatiable demand for hamburgers, you can hedge that exposure from day 1 by investing in the meat industry. Or you could simply adopt a mixed diet and reduce your exposure to hamburger prices.

Investing is a form of delayed gratification in which you are buying future profits. At the time of the transaction, of course you'd like the price to be low in relation to the future profits but you'd still like the future profits to be high and the current price is going to be a function of those future profits. What you are really asking for is that the market undervalues the assets as and when you want to buy them and overvalues those same assets when you want to sell them. It's an unrealistic hope if you assume that everyone else wants the same.

Going back to the hamburger analogy, buy hamburgers when the prices are low but when prices are high, buy chicken.

Well it was enough for me to add a few more here. No reason not to buy at 193p just because you could have bought lower a week ago.

There's a small benefit from a low SP in enabling the company to buyback more shares but this is at best a second-order benefit. The idea that you are better off with a lower share price defies all logic - who wants to be poorer? At best you might be more neutral about a lower SP but higher is better because you have more options.

Of course, if you've got a planned reinvestment schedule and want to buy cheaper - who doesn't - that's a self-imposed constraint.

Can't see this having much impact on LGEN.

Hmmm, now it looks like the CFO sold all of her shares. That's not a good look.

460p is a little high but not excessively so. And if it can break through 410p, who knows where it will climb. While we're bouncing around in the 330-370's, I'm happy enough being a little overweight here and pick up a few % extra shares while trading that range. Beyond 420p, I expect I will be taking larger slices of profits.

The CFO sale news is just noise IMHO

Agreed, context is everything. Those receiving a state pension and owning their own property already have significant assets so anything on top of that needs to be considered as part of the mix. Very different from someone in their mid-30's who might have a mortgage and kids but with a much longer investment horizon and much less to invest (and potentially lose). I might even go so far to say that those investing with a 30+ year horizon will probably not be as interested in LGEN unless there are specific advantages for them to invest here (life employee share schemes).

For those at or close to retirement for whom the dividend from LGEN makes up a significant portion of their income, it is always worth considering what would happen if the dividend were cut. If that becomes a bit too painful then it's perhaps a sign that a little diversification would be in order, remembering too that adding SDLF, MNG is not really going to help much with diversification.

The share purchase was marked as "Share purchase under an arrangement with the Company" and you will notice similar RNS's in previous months so this is obviously a regular investment that the Chair is making in DGE.

Rumpel, to clarify, my view is that spreading risk does allow you to maximise returns but subject to the constraint of a certain risk level. You can make higher returns than the market but only by accepting a higher level of risk. Note also that returns here are dividends AND gains and that this is looking at a multi-year approach to investing.

With regards to management, I probably take a rather cynical view. Particularly with a company like LGEN, where cash simply rolls off the business, the main quality of management is to "not mess things up". Sure there can be potential upside gains - like an good acquisition - which are nice to have but most of the value is already in business here so the key role of management is to keep it there and make a few incremental gains. If they are making a big difference to the SP then there's a good chance it's not a positive one. This, I should probably add, is my private view based on some time working in the industry.

Strictly, no need for a consensus as every investor can have their own risk tolerance. This message board is quite civilised and it's always good to have a mix of views on different points if only to see this as a subset of the wider market. For my views on diversification, I'm basing this on Modern Portfolio Theory so it's not very original. I'm happier keeping the discussion open to everyone.

I don't think moonlighting is something that a CEO/Chairman is can do - at least not while retaining any integrity for the role. He's employed in a dual role by the business so should not be devoting his own time and effort towards private ventures. Of course he allows himself to do that because he is the CEO but the Board should not have allowed this.

For investors there can't be any confidence that he is working for TEK. The 51% holding might be "free" but the cost is that we now have clear evidence that we are paying for a CEO/Chairman who is only working part-time and yet is still costing TEK a small fortune. And he controls 100% of the voting capital of the new company so you can imagine how much of that will come to TEK shareholders.

People often misunderstand diversification. It is not solely a means of maximising returns otherwise you would make far more money putting everything in one high-risk stock and wait for the price to double before moving to the next one. Vanishingly few people would accept that level of risk so at some level people understand that they are looking for a balance of risk and reward which accepts a lower reward by spreading the risk among different companies. Of course they won't make as much as if they invested in the best performing asset but they'll sleep easier knowing that they haven't bet the house on that alone and can you certain of keeping your nerve when the SP drops repeatedly. If you've got 50%+ invested in a single stock you have to ask yourself how happy you are for so much of your future fortune to be sitting on the shoulders of such a small number of people.

You say it costs nothing? What about the evidence it shows that Clifford is freelancing? This idea that the 51% is free ignores the likelihood that TEK is just being used to fund another of his private ventures.