Member Info for joedjoed

The share price swap happened at a level consistent with prices the day before. Yup, there could be a conspiracy. But, I think it is perfectly possible that this is a storm in a teacup and that things will settle.

Assuming there is none, then here is my attempt to attach a valuation to the two components after Mobile Money is spun off leaving MM and Rump. I am adding some thoughts to calcs I first put out on ADVFN chat. I putting this out in the spirit of discussion and sanity checking with folk who may find errors.

Per results:

Group EBITDA 2026: 3162

MM EBITDA 2026: 689.

Rump EBITDA 2026: 2473

If we value MM at 12*EBITDA and Rump at 6* this gives USD 22.8BN = GBP 17.1bn. With approx. 3650mln shares in existence then this implies a share price of 468 now.

BUT. These results really are exceptional. Growth is strong across all businesses, with a powerful demographic undercurrent. I therefore think that valuations should be forward looking. 2026 showed circa 30% growth in revenue and EBITDA for both parts of the business. If we project 15% growth for the next year, which is how the valuation could be seen we get to a share price of 539.

A multiple of 12 for MM is probably not ambitious. I am lost for a perfect comparison but WISE trades on 20 and does not have the same demographic story. A multiple of 6 for Rump may also be modest. Per Grok: “Mobile carrier companies (wireless telecom operators) typically trade at 7–10x EV/EBITDA, with a common range of 6–9x depending on the region, growth profile, and market conditions”. Again, the demographic growth story and the relatively modest debt load (which has reduced materially over the last few years) would support a higher multiple.

Comments appreciated

I think you used the 1207.41 from the 31 Mar NAV update. But the updates lag so this referred to the pos on 30th. The number you need to reflect the reval that happened on 31 is the one issued on 1 Apr. You are using the same, lower NAV as I am...Cum Par NAV. The other takes into account the market value of the debt.

---

From Grok:

Cum = Includes accrued income/revenue for the current year.

Par = Debt is valued at its nominal/face value (what the trust will repay at maturity).

Fair = Debt is marked to its current market price (what it would cost to buy back the debt today).

The difference arises almost entirely from the valuation of the trust’s structural debt (e.g., debentures, loan notes, or preference shares).

When interest rates rise, older fixed-rate debt often trades below par → Fair value of debt is lower → Subtracting a smaller number in Fair NAV → Cum Fair NAV is higher than Cum Par NAV.

When interest rates fall, the opposite can occur.

----

Operationally it seems to me that Par NAV is more relevant as it takes into account the real world cashflows involved in repaying debt. The other is more relevant in liquidation.

Addendum to the below is that, if my calcs below are correct then the implied SpaceX IPO value to render a discount of 5% is 1.52 trillion.

Thank you Meconopsis. I see different NAV numbers at source but prefer your method. I am using the NAV Cum Par NAV nums from SMT’s own RNS corresponding to 28 Feb (actually last trading day was 27th) and those for 31 Mar. Let me know where my logic errs:

Feb 27th - 1261.42 * 15.4% ‎ =  194.26 attributable to SpaceX

Mar 31st - 1282.25 * 19.3%‎ = 247.47 attributable to SpaceX

Therefore implied SpaceX valuation now being used = 800bn * 247.47 / 194.26 = 1019bn. So a bit more than I suggested in previous posts

Current IG price for SpaceX cap at IPO= 2480 (bid)

So, implied “correct” attributable to SpaceX = 2480/1019 * 247.47 = 602.2

Latest (6 May) Cum Par NAV = 1366.7. This implicitly embeds 247.47 to SpaceX. So “correct” NAV = 1366.7 + 602.2 -247.47 = 1721.43.

This gives a “true” discount of 16.2% using Cum Par NAV. And rather more (17.7) if you prefer to use Cum Fair NAV.

@LordLoads, yup I agree to some extent there is uncertainty. There are two sources of that uncertainty: futures discount and SpaceX actual IPO price. Re the latter, if the IG price is really wrong then all private individuals who hold SpaceX through SPVs or directly as employees would be able to hit that bid driving it to the “right” price. So, I think there has to be some real-world objectivity in that IG number. And, again, if you really don’t like that risk the obvious trade is to buy SMT and sell IG’s forward price. You are hedged.

Yup, there is a real issue about what the “right” discount is for SMT. I would suggest that post the IPOs somewhere around -5% might be reasonable.

The above is why I maintain the managers should not be selling shares. Yes, the price may be higher than the level at which they were bought. That does not matter. The fact is that in selling SMT at current market value buyers are buying the component parts for less than they are really worth. Which implicitly must be bad for existing shareholders. That money comes from us.

@ Meconopsis

2026 04 01: SMT RNS: “SpaceX stands at 19.3% at close of business on 31 March 2026, compared with 15.4% on 28 February 2026”: 19.3 / 15.4 = 1.253

2026 04 01: EWI RNS: “SpaceX stands at 20.4% at close of business on 31 March 2026, compared with 16.3% on 28 February 2026”: 20.4/16.3 = 1.251

US Growth before and after %ages are 14.9 and 11.9 giving 1.252

Schiehallion before and after %ages are 12.8 and 10.5 giving 1.22

The above all cluster very closely to a 1.25 multiple factor valuation. My assumption is that the previous valuation was based on a cap of 800bn [per Grok: "major uplift in December 2025 / early 2026 (when SpaceX was valued at $800bn for valuation purposes)” ]. Giving an implied valuation now of 800*1.25 = 1 trillion.

More than fair, LL. I am banging on not so much to suggest that the arb makes sense as a practical trade. Though I think it does. But to say "look, there is an objective measure that Mr Market is communicating, that says that SMT's NAV is undervalued by 20-25%". ie the board should not be selling shares out of treasury. THERE IS NO REAL DISCOUNT. WE ARE BEING DILUTED.

Or alternatively I want to be told that my calculation that SpaceX is being carried at 1 trillion (on which the above is predicated) is wrong.

As a private punter, of course, one CAN create the necessary certainty: Buy 100K of SMT, sell 46K of IG's SpaceX cap bid (based on current live 2.3trillion bid). If SpaceX floats at 1bn, the current SMT valuation, you make 26K on the IG hedge and possibly lose 14K on SMT as it moves from its stated 4% premium to a 10% discount. 12k gross profit. Alternatively, if the IG price is correct then SpaceX goes from being 20% of the portfolio to 46% implying an increase of 26% for SMT NAV. But, being consistent, if we assume again that SMT settles at 10% disc then there is 12K profit on the SMT leg. Its an arb.

@lordloadsoflolly..re "except over the past 5 years SMT has typically traded at a 5%-22% discount to NAV".

At the risk of seeming pedantic but just testing my logic: my retort is that "it is trading at about 15% discount now if the correct SpaceX valuation were used".

ie the premium that we are seeing in the published numbers is a chimera. If we use the latest cum par NAV and closing price the apparent premium is 4.9% (2.4% if we use Cum Fair NAV). But my argument is that SpaceX is being carried at 1trillion instead of 2.45 trillion (current tradable price for mkt cap at launch on IGIndex ). If we are conservative and go for 2trillion SMT is actually worth 20% more than the published NAV num. Giving at least a 15% disc to TRUE nav. What am I missing?

Its madness issuing shares at this "premium". The NAV used to calculate this premium is not a fair reflection of true value. My calculations (DYOR etc) suggest that BGifford is valuing SpaceX at 1trillion implied mkt cap across all its 4 funds. This is too low. IG's forward (tradable) price is over2 trillion...2.3 currently actually. There is an arb here: private investors could buy SMT and sell SpaceX forward. If it converges to say a float at the 2trillion mark there is an additional 20% NAV upside. Which means the shares are trading at about 15% discount to NAV in reality.

Thank you. I could not find a transcript/recording of the meeting. Any ideas?

@ Apeirogon: as I read the results released today, JMAT produced 500mln of free cash flow up from 190 year below, not 250. A pretty good set of results. Debt down, profit up, promise of higher divis. Im not selling any.

@Couerdelion ... Im not sure if a comparison with nominal gilt yields is right. The key question is whether PHNX is a real or nominal stock. Most stocks are real...ie provide a natural inflation hedge. My instinct is that PHNX is in the middle. It has a substantial existing business which will roll off and where the promised cashflows are probably constant in nominal terms. But it will be taking on new business which will be in real terms. If this is right, the correct comparison is not with nominal gilts at 5% but between nominal and index linkers at closer to 2%. Lets go with 3.5-4%. Still good value then

@ Pikeman and Miller: to be clear, im comfortable with the business model. Yes, of course they need to hedge. No probs. And by hedging forward they get higher prices than current spot. Great

However, the fact remains that CME back months (ie gas price 2-3 years forward, the sort of period they may be hedging HAVE ALSO FALLEN. Therefore there is no longer the decoupling of spot and forward that we had seen for the previous year. I get that DEC may not actually be selling CME futures....doesnt matter. The CME backmonths are a valid baromoter as these will be used to price the gas swaps they do use to hedge. What is also clear is that your macro observation how long term there will be less gas supply and that long term LNG will narrow the spread between US and EU gas prices...that sentiment is not being reflected in the term structure of nat gas prices.

Not sure I see it the same way re gas price. Yes, DEC hedge by selling forward. And yes, there are existing hedges in place that are therefore in-the-money. But the process of selling forward never stops: DEC has to continually hedge its production. So it is very short term to argue that lower back month prices are a positive. Actually, I am happy if/that the investing community does not understand that IRRS hedge accounting means that a p&l loss has to be shown if back month futures rally. This means that the shares are undervalued and I can enjoy the anomaly by reinvesting divis more cheaply. And I know that this alos means that the co can sell future production at an even higher price securing a higher divi in 2 years time.

I track the CME back-month futures by looking at the average price of the 4 CME contracts from 2-3 years. This is the only way of removing the noise of seasonality (winter prices always higher than summer). The average had been pretty stable for a year. In the last week-ish it has fallen from 4 to 3.77. This is non-trivial for our longer term margins. IN a trading update earlier this yr DEC quoted an average cost of prod of USD1.73 per McF. CME trades in units of MMBtu so the equiv in CME terms is about 4% lower.

So the margins are still there if the cost of prod has not changed materially from the 1.73 (1.8 in CME speak) quoted at the time. Anyone have later cost of prod nums?