Member Info for fela96

Dontshootme, what are the figures backing up that claim of RSI over 70 leading to a sell off?

Chumba, you could always try putting half your money in the 4.5% bond and half in SMT. Check where they are in a few years from now.

I'm not sure how day trading of SMT can explain the performance of its NAV though ;-)

Yep: nasdaq up 102%, SMT NAV up 64% over the same period. Given SMT's massive volatility, I'd call that disappointing. Discount just makes that look a lot worse, but it's still not great, IMO.

Apologies, my last post was using figures over three years. But it's a similar story of nasdaq out-performance of the NAV over five years, I believe.

You're right, the NAV over the past five years is no disaster. But neither is it anything particularly special, IMO. The volatility on the other hand, is something special (not in a good way). If I wanted to just track the global IT sector I'd buy something with less volatility. That's why I compare this trust primarily with innovation-heavy indexes, such as the nasdaq, and compared to that it does look appalling (even the NAV over 5 years: down 10% vs the nasdaq up close to 40%). Anyway let's hope that changes.

Yeah, I mean if you take a graph of the NAV (not the share price) over the past few years, it under-performs a basic tracker. You might have a different view of what constitutes under-performance, and that's fine, but I'm not particularly happy with SMT's NAV. If it traded at a 0% premium/discount for this whole time, I'd still be asking questions about SMT's performance.

I can get behind changing the subject :-)

Dontshootme, I doubt SMT has a debt problem, in my view the discount is because the market doesn't trust the valuations themselves. A discount of 22% is insane really. But saying that, I don't think the discount is all that relevant. It's just amplifying an underlying problem which is that the NAV is underperforming. Put it this way, if the discount was 0%, would everyone be happy with a flat SP performance since last year while the nasdaq has almost recovered to its ATH? Maybe.

Walp, you obviously had a different interaction with LLL than I had, but would you defend everything someone says or does simply because they were helpful to you at one point? Because my interactions were as follows:

1. LLL makes a claim which I consider to be nonsense

2. I explain why I think it's nonsense

3. He berates me for being argumentative and uses more (in my view) shoddy reasoning to back up his point

4. I counter-argue against the further reasoning

5. He tells me to stop replying, that I "read like Investment for Dummies", and that he can "tell I'm a youngster" (paraphrasing)

Forgive me for not sharing your total unerring respect.

Yep, being fair on the dividend argument, the only one to take issue was Mr Lolly, who strikes me as somebody who doesn't really care about what's demonstrably true, only the age of who's speaking, and the manner in which they speak, two things which I regard with less importance. Let's have fewer condescending and woolly references to "investment for Dummies" please, and more "this is why you're wrong" and "I hadnt thought about it like that" instead.

Walp, thanks for taking the time to post that. I agree the argument about whether SMT is a failing investment was a stupid one, because ultimately it became about semantics (what qualifies as failing).

But other arguments have been very well defined, and it seems simply my lack of agreement that winds people up. Examples:

- Whether SMT should pay a dividend. Simply calling other people's reasoning out at all seemed to wind them up. Seems like pathos and ego to me?

- What is causing SMT's poor NAV performance. Again, calling out people's reasoning mentioning the discount, or UK investors, etc. Why am I not allowed to question these blatantly wrong arguments?

Walp, could you please point me to an example where you believe I've failed to consider somebody else's point of view? I'm genuinely curious. I'd love to encounter an argument which makes logical sense and proves me wrong, it would mean I've learned something.

I'm not out for a fight. My point of view is that any kind of questioning of anybody else's statements yields froth and yet more incomprehensibly daft arguments (such as SMT's NAV being determined by UK investor sentiment, a completely ridiculous notion). Maybe people here don't like that and would prefer to just be listened to rather than questioned?

The reason I mentioned day trading is that you were talking about the price at which you bought SMT. The only reason this could possibly be relevant is if you also sold SMT at various points in an attempt to take advantage of its volatility. If you've made money doing this, then respect (though it's probably pure luck). But if you simply held through the volatility, then you were in effect buying at all of the in between prices, making your entry point meaningless. This is because of opportunity cost. There seems to be a misconception that holding a stock is functionally different from buying it. If you hold a stock which you deem to be overpriced, then you are missing out on returns by not selling it (in order to buy back in at a lower price in future), in exactly the same way as buying in at a high price is missing out on returns by not waiting for the lower price. With the benefit of hindsight, anybody who held SMT through £15 lost real money by not selling it then, and was no more or less financially literate than somebody who bought it at that price.

Sorry I meant the value of Tesla, SMT is of course determined by mainly UK investors :-)

Jeez, it's like talking to a bunch of creationists. Basic logic not your strong suit eh? You do realise the position you're defending is:

Global investors invest in Tesla -> SMT invests in Tesla -> UK investors invest in SMT -> the value of SMT is determined by UK investors (what?!)

Substitute Tesla with Bytedance, ASML, Moderna etc.

Also, buying at £15 is equivalent to holding through £15. So according to you, anyone who held SMT in December 2022 was financially illiterate? Got it.

Dontshootme, the NAV isn't determined by people buying or selling SMT. It's determined by people buying and selling the underlying holdings. Most of which are not in the UK. Therefore UK investors have very little influence on the NAV. Do you understand?

Walp, if you're trying to day trade SMT then good luck to you, but that's not its intended purpose. You're probably better off betting on currency pairs. More leverage innit.

PS. If you don't continue to buy when the price rises, that is equivalent to selling. I bought at £15 for the same reason I bought at £4 and will continue to buy at £6 today.

Dontshootme, wasn't your argument that UK investor sentiment affects NAV?

In which case that's nonsense isn't it, since the SMT is hardly invested in the UK?

Which part of the above would you dispute?

Walp, you know "technical analysis" is a pseudoscience which is neither "technical" nor qualifies as proper "analysis", in the same way that the Democratic Republic of Korea isn't democratic.