Member Info for Lending

Baillie Gifford published an interesting statistic based upon US academic research.

61% of companies lose money for shareholders during their time in the market.

The next 38% make money but only just make up for the losses of the 61%.

So the overall market gains are only made by 1% of the listed companies. Finding these, and investing in them when things are still far from certain, is what will make investors rich. Looks like investing long-term in DT fits the bill nicely. That is not to say Max et al will not enjoy the volatility caused by the uncertainty along the way as well.

B - I have been there in my earlier investing days so speak with some understanding - it was a long learning curve and part of the school of hard knocks.

Personally, I usually now do quite detailed research before investing but not always. DARK is a very good example. I only came across DT on listing, and, as I thought the thinking behind the technology was brilliant, and the need for it was urgent (we are in a cyber war imo), I invested early without even studying the prospectus properly or any knowledge of the potential risks (e.g ML involvement). It was a reasoned gamble, but a gamble all the same, and it only a small part of my portfolio. That it is paying off fantastically this time is great, but it is not an approach I would usually use or recommend for all investments.

Inheritance - great - have fun with it, but if you are going to invest, invest it wisely as there is a tendency for it to be splashed. For less experienced investors drip feeding into established quality companies is not a bad way to start as it avoids getting your timing wrong with lump sums while you learn. It is fun taking a punt on riskier stocks, but start out with a small percentage of the total while you set out on the investment journey and learn (mostly from mistakes) .

If you only want to trade, disregard all I have said, as that game is played quite differently.

And a tip from a contributor who says Max lost every time - I seem to have different glasses on!

Fairy - in my experience it is important, before investing, to do ones own research rather than blindly following tips given on BBs. Great to get tips, but then understand what you are buying before investing. GEM, for instance, could be an interesting company for some, but not all, as it operates in unstable parts of the world and is not that “commercial” as it has very few shares trades (only 15 trades yesterday for instance).

I only urge caution as I have seen too many investors being burnt by investing in companies they don’t fully understand. Some will work out fine, but the majority I suggest, do not end well.

R - if you are interested in the intrigue surrounding ML, the viewpoint from the perspective of DT is well covered in the risk section in pgs12-35 of the prospectus. Lots of ifs - the main concern being the possible harm to reputation and is supposedly one reason the company was floated for such a low price. Great movie material.

Charles - Strictly the only funds that need to buy are Tracker Funds either closed end or open end and include tracker ETFs. Some trackers actually buy the shares (full replication) while others - a minority - use derivatives. I cannot find out what % of the FTSE100 or FTSE/All Share is based on replicating trackers but for the US market as a whole trackers account for ca50%of the market . I believe the figure here in the UK is much smaller based on the % holding in companies by the large trackers but I haven’t been able to find a definitive figure. If anyone knows the % holding of trackers in the UK market you will have your answer.

PSH (now in the FTSE100) recently went to great lengths to grow the fund so as to get into the FTSE100 in an attempt to boost the SP in order to reduce its 25-30% discount to net asset value but it made no difference at all.

We’ll see.

RP - seems to me that is the skill of a great trader - not being too greedy. Max I salute you.

I’m taking a look as well but it doesn’t immediately grab me to the same extent as DT did so more research needed especially with regard to competition from US companies.

Also Woodford was a keen investor …….

Nidec - I only have one investment philosophy and that is to buy what I think is a quality company ( in line with Buffett’s ideas) and hold until it is sold , or when I have made a mistake or circumstances change. So having bought once in the low 300s I will hold for the foreseeable future as my view of the company has only but improved since purchase. Usually I don’t follow the companies I buy very closely, but DT is an exception as I like the technology and find the roll-out fascinating. I give the company two to five years as an independent company before it is dressed up for sale as that is what the two largest SHs and ML do - and our chancellor is of the same mould. It would be great if otherwise but history is not on our side.

I admire skilled traders like Max, but they are on the other end of the investment spectrum from me and I haven’t the competence or inclination to make a success of it. Great, though, to see the masters at play and a lot to learn from them about the dynamics of the market.

W007. I Believe Max is referring to the original shareholders who cannot sell until 27 October (after 180 days from listing on 30 April - Part 14 of Prospectus). They were allowed to break lock-up arrangements to sell 3% of the shares earlier and below market price - I suspect to increase the free-float in order to facilitate entry into the FTSE250. Now with tracker funds needing to buy DTs shares because of the FTSE listing…….. Let’s see..

Does anyone know the % ownership of tracker funds in the FTSE100/250?. For the US market it is ca 50%, so, if similar here, how could they properly replicate the market if there is insufficient free float? After 27 October they could if the price is right, but before?

SS - I thank you for the clarification - I stand corrected regarding the month of end of the lock-up period - if my arithmetic is now correct that makes it 27 October for the majority of the SHs and 180 days later for the identified employees.

As to whether anyone will sell on that date - who knows or what the incentive could be be. I posed a question and was not meant as a prediction. It is an event that could cause short-term turbulence and therefore may be of interest to those wishing to buy, sell or trade. It’s Is an identified risk factor in the Prospectus and, as they point out, the mere perception that sales might happen could be sufficient to influence the SP. Did the recently unlocked ca 3% of the shares for 620p not have a short term affect on the SP?

Those that like to trade, top-up or whatever will have an exciting time time in November when the lock-up obligation for the big initial shareholders ends. Another 50%+, or thereabouts, of the shares will enter the free-float -a time for a feeding frenzy or slaughter? About the same time as the FTSE 100 deliberations?

Houston - we have liftoff! My admiration for the company and its management increased even further following the 1300h presentation. Loved the bit on R&D.

Great results.

I particularly liked the positive EBITDA figures and the Revenue Growth Rate of 41% to give revenue of $0.28B for FY21. The change in expectation for the RGR for FY22 from 27%to 30% at IPO to 35% to 37% is a positive change in expectation of 26% over the period. If the improvement in expectation continues to grow over the 12 month period, a RGR improvement (growth on growth) of over 50% year-over-year over the 41% FY21 figure is within the realms of a realistic possibility.

To get a feel as to what this could mean – THIS NOT MEANT TO BE A PREDICTION – when I compound these growth rates over ten year period - but reduced the growth-on-growth figure systematically to zero over that time - I get a revenue figure approaching $40B in 2031 which is about expected Total Accessible Market value. Is this a demonstration of Einstein’s view that compounding is one of the wonders of the world coming true?

I share SW77 interest in where next for the IP beyond Cyber Security. There must be great unrealized potential that will add even further to the value of this exciting company.

SW77. Too true - it is all about management capability in the end. There is an interesting interview on the net with the late Steve Jobs in which he said that the big breakthrough at Apple came when he realised product has to follow customer need, not visa versa. I guess that is what I was trying to say. DT has got that spot on with the spooks, boffins and marketers getting together to form a formidable team.

Touché but don’t forget meeting the needs, requirements and expectations of the customers. Somewhat critical to success I suggest.

The figure I will look at first tomorrow is the Revenue Growth Rate and whether there is an expectation that we will see an acceleration (rate of growth of the growth rate). To me this acceleration needs to be significantly better than projected in the July RNS to get me excited about any potential increases in the SP. Currently DTs Revenue Growth Rate is dwarfed by S1’s 120% albeit from a lower base.

Tomorrow will reveal all - or perhaps nearly all - so GL.

Personally I think there would have had to have been a strong case to allow the lock-up to be relaxed and that it had something to do with the free-float. I don’t think it would have been allowed just to raise funds for the four shareholders or to allow the SP to be manipulated. But then I do have some faith in our institutions - albeit not an enormous amount.

I sympathise with what SH said - poor journalism send not strong on facts. I don’t ever recall any suggestion of impropriety regarding DT’s book keeping. Having read a lot about the Autonomy issue now in, amongst other, the DT PROSPECTUS, my take is that if the alleged fraud case against ML is proven, then the money arising from the autonomy sale would be regarded as being ‘dirty’. As these proceeds in part financed DT, DT would, in any investigation, need to show that it would have been unreasonable to expect them to know this finance money was ‘dirty’ under current anti-laundering legislation. Their own analysis of the situation is that the risk is low. However the old dictum that perception is reality for it’s reputation could still be a consideration for customers, sales an SP.