Member Info for Lending

Marcinkus - you are not a venture capitalist I suppose. Suggest you look Summit and KKRs web sites to understand how they operate - it is certainly not how you would. They invested three times I believe while DT was still a limited company and steered DT through its start-up in a form of partnership. And would already have made large profits on paper even at the IPO SP. They will disinvest as this is their strategy after a “ liquidity event” - the IPO-so it is only a question of when and how. The hope is that they will do this responsibly without too much disruption to the SP, and they are very experienced in doing this, but they will also now have other fish to catch. They are not iis in the traditional sense and do not invest directly in PLCs.

Spot on Jayne and Thecape.

I think the problem with this BB Is that we have contributors on both ends of the investment spectrum - on the one end true investors and on the other side - well essentially pure gamblers.

So for the the LTHs. I am on the extreme end and, when I buy, I see myself as essentially taking a reasoned bet that I can see more value in a share than Mr or Ms Market and will buy when the SP supports this view. And of course visa versa if my view changes. Other than that the short term SP is immaterial to me. I would rather buy a share in a race horse -were I to be able to assess its future earning - than place a bet on a horse in a given race.

On the other hand the intrinsic value of a share to a trader is immaterial. They will, it seems to me, be betting that they know how Mr Market will price the share in the short term and buy/sell accordingly. That will add to volatility especially if they are all singing from a similar hymn sheet.

Views from the extreme ends of the spectrum don’t seem to me to be reconcilable.

Perhaps though, it would be a fit - think the decarbonisation strategy for fuels - coal - oil- N Gas - hydrogen? They like vertical integration too - renewable electricity- hydrogen production and transport -sales. Time will tell. We live, as you suggest, in interesting yet disturbing times.

Getafgrip - I don’t disagree with your analysis and there are many possible outcomes - who knows what current management is really thinking. I also agree with the Sunday Times article today suggesting it can be harmful to try and please too many people at the same time. It opens them up to others wanting to do take control and do things differently as you suggest. In the past Shell was always too big for a take-over to to be a realistic possibility, but now?

I remember the the internal debates even as long ago as the late 80s early 90s on how best to -position the company given the clear evidence that climate change was a matter to be taken seriously. The first step was to refocus on lower carbon hydrocarbons - exiting coal and repositioning the business expansion into natural gas. Thing have moved on since then - others clearly don’t think it is a good idea.

Hi Getafgrip - your post 321. You seem to have have good appreciation of Shell- a company I know extremely well and have also been invested in them from the mid ‘70s.

The one area I am not convinced about is whether they will ever again get involved in the mining business. They tried that from 1970-1994 - for the reasons you give -with the acquisition of Billiton, but that was singularly unsuccessful as, although superficially the same - you explore, produce, refine, sell - the mining/mineral businesses require quite different cultures and competences and it was always a difficult marriage. Eventually BHP bought Billiton, but then BHP sold off most of Billiton’s assets as they focussed on core businesses. Now BHP are hiving-off their hydrocarbon assets to concentrate on their mineral assets. I thought the intention was for Shell to form a JV operation with BHP with these assets - but not the mineral assets.

But then, renewables, too, requires a completely different mind sets and competences so we will see. In my view these businesses are as much for PR purposes than for any other.

If there is to be a merger/acquisition of any size my view is that it will be in the gas business - hence interest in BHP’s hydrocarbons.

Thanks, Berylfu. This was not my reading of the Prospectus, which states it is 180 days from “Admission” - and if you look at recent RNSs of say, ONT and AWE, they also both define “Admission” as the first day of unconditional trading - this was for DT the 6/5. If Market Screener was right, though, all well and good and that matter is done and dusted.

In which case I wonder whether this had as much to do with spooking the market on the 27 and 28th as PH’s commentary.

Does anyone have a confirmed - auditable - end date for the last day of the first lock-up period as I may have missed a post? Or has it already passed?

According to the Prospectus/ RNS it is180 days from “Admission” which I believe was on 6/5/2021 - the first day of unconditional trading.

Recalculating this, it makes Monday 1/11/2021 - and not the 2nd that I previously posted - the possible last day of the lock-up period but please DYOR.

If I am correct, perhapsTuesday will be …….well sea sickness tablets may be the order of the day. Who knows- I certainly don’t.

Marna, we owe some of your countrymen a debt of gratitude during WW2 - the helped hugely in cracking the ENIGMA machine and played a critical role in saving the day during the Battle of Britain (the 303 Polish squadron was the most successful) It is a black spot on our history that many were sent back after the war to an uncertain fate. I can only but apologise for some of our boorish fellow citizens.

We are all part timers/amateurs - some with more and some with less experienced -so to me the purpose of participating in a BB is to learn from each other, and to increase our understanding of the investment game and the company we are dealing with. Opinions will necessarily vary widely, and some will be based on fact and others on feelings/instincts. Nothing wrong with any of that – but please, please all, keep it civil.

Brokers use DCF analysis, but the resultant valuation is only as good as the input revenues and costs (and CAPEX for capital intensive businesses). I made a simple DCF model for Darktrace (I was involved in the past in project evaluation) and the resultant valuations came out as low as 200p or in the mid thousands when sensitising the calculation using SentinelOne’s growth rates and their projections. So DCF gives a feel as to numbers, but presenting absolute numbers is nonsensical for high growth companies as the uncertainties are just too high. Based on this, and my own view as to revenues and costs, I am comfortable with prices in the 800-1000 range.

On the volatility, one of the problems is that DT is not that liquid currently with a free float in the range 18-27% depending on one’s information source. This will increase to an estimated 80% plus at the end of lock-up - either 27/10 or 2/11 depending on one’s view of the “Admission” date. So we can expect more turbulence but this should ease as supply-demand equilibrates to the new situation. Increased liquidity should increase automatic trading through the automatic trading of SETS and diminish the influence of the MMs leading to more stability and a lesser ability to manipulate.

All in MVHO.

Oh when darkness comes
And pain is all around
Sail on, silver girl
Sail on by
Your time has come to shine
All your dreams are on their way
See how they shine
Oh if you need a friend
I'm sailing right behind
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will ease your mind

The problem, as I see it, is that the only way to arrive at a valuation of a company is by DCF analysis -and PH and others will use it - but as discussed a few times on this BB, it is is fraught with difficulty with high growth companies. Even relativity small differences in the growth rate - which can only be guessed at medium term - and the assumed Discount Factor can have a big impact on the derived valuation so it is not surprising to me that we are seeing very large differences by brokers. My only surprise is that the market pays so much heed to them.

Even Buffett, a huge fan of DCF, now openly admits that DCF must be seen together with , or replaced by, a more qualitative approach taking account of all the factors JayneC and others bring to the table.

For long term holders this volatility is inconsequential - for others it creates opportunities. Why the fuss, why the emotion?

Now a quote for 815!

Just done what I don’t usually do =- bought some more with a limit order below 790 and it has been fulfilled. Wow! what is going on.

HGB - I wasn’t clear and two 27s which could be (is) confusing. All good - great for everyone to have their say even if it goes against the flow which I think is healthy if reasoned. Now, indeed, also the Budget - hope he leaves the dividend and CGT tax alone otherwise……- some reaction I guess.

HGB- sorry I didn’t realise that the immediate FTSE100 entry on 27th was known to us a few days ago as it was this event I was referring too - not clear I can see that - and there is also another possible 27th event date. I only got wind of the entry it late on Friday and I don’t recall that there has been any discussion linking the recent news on the FTSE100 entry to the recent volatility.

Personally I am of the opinion that every effect (SP movement) has an underlying cause, and if the causality can be understood, then predictions can be more soundly based. Playing Devil’s advocate, or surmising a cause, is just one way to facilitate debate with a view to increasing that understanding. Published literature - as recently posted by Jayne - is also an excellent way of learning IMHO and reduces the guessing game.

Just a final thought on DT entering the FTSE100 from my own experiences with PSH - a closed end investment company. I bought it as a gamble as shorting is very much the name of their game and I though I could learn something. It did well in March 21 (COVID) but then hit the buffers and continued with a huge 30% discount - so cash was pumped to raise its value to get it into the FTSE100 as this was to be the salvation. The result on, or prior to, entry? -absolutely nothing to the SP or discount and, until very recently, it has continued to languish.

Of course the situation with DT is very different, but one must wonder whether the recent fall - Jayne suspected it was walked down - and subsequent rise was not a result of the market getting wind of it as there was no other news around that would explain it. In my view the City must have had some advanced inkling - were they really so wrong footed and out of touch? - we shall see this week - it will be, well, “fascinating”.

Thanks Jayne - may I say “interesting”. As someone who started adult life in academic and industrial scientific/engineering research it is just the sort of study I understand - fact based, scientific, objective and tested. I’m not sure that there is that much change, but, of course, every case is different so care…..

I would concur with MTB on the effect the FTSE100 entry will have on the SP - enter to the FTSE250 did cause some upward movement of the SP , but, in actuality, it didn’t have a huge short-term effect IMHO. It is going to be interesting to see how those of you who like short-term trading are going to play the game - great news tempered by the uncertainty associated with the end of lock-up - raises all sorts of possibilities..

But great news indeed - one further positive. I like the entry to the 100 more for its influence on the long term valuation -how much money is to be made by the company. it raises the profile even further, is fantastic for reputation and customers will be even more comfortable being associated with a successful high-profile company. Revenues should go up accordingly, and if costs are controlled, the SP will look after itself. But that is a view of a long term holder.

Getagrip -following your comment, I’ve taken another look at how our VC shareholders operate. Your assessment is probably right and the VC’s will move-on - it is only a question of when. I may be wrong, but personally I don’t think it will happen immediately after the end lock-up, as that is too predictable, but we will see. What ML/AB, with a 16% holding, will do is the next question.

Summit Partners, our lead VC with 19% of the shares, has a business model different from investment banks. They invest and then take a very hands-on approach forming a partnership with management. Their exits strategy is to facilitate a “liquidity event” - these are seemingly mergers, take-overs or IPOs.

From what I can see, a year on from other IPOs they still have some holdings in some of their companies, so hopefully there will be a managed exit to prevent as little disruption to the SP as possible - I would have thought it is in their interests to do so. Or they will facilitate a take-over or merger to extract a further pennies worth. Whatever their game, they appear to me to be very accomplished operators.

Thanks Jayne - helpful as usual. For my own cerebral wellbeing I’ll study further. To my mind the sooner the middlemen- the MMS - can be eliminated from the equation the better as their incentive to manipulate is seemingly unbounded. PerhapsDT could provide the necessary AI and machine learning to facilitate this.