Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

Sfh300 - IMHO the risk is extremely high with Nvidia at current levels. Everything is priced in for continued exponential growth and at some point, chances are there’ll be an earnings miss. Simply because, as SMT’s managers point out, nothing rises in a near-vertical line forever.

It may not be now, it may not be for several more years. But assuming it eventually happens, Nvidia holders won’t be looking quite so comfortable.

SMT first bought into NVDA around the $20 level. The current price is around $1060. And you’re wondering if they know what they’re doing by reducing slightly. I mean, really?

Worth a read, especially the AI commentary.

One thing I’m pleased about is that they HAVE reduced their Nvidia holding.

Despite this, thanks to NVDA’s stratospheric rise in recent years, it remains their largest position as of 30 04 24. Interestingly, they first invested in Nvidia back in 2016 when its share price ranged between $8 and $25. Currently it’s over $1035. Not certain whether that accounts for any stock splits either (a 10 for 1 stock consolidation was announced this morning).

Sure, Nvidia may go much higher still. But at some point it’s bound to pause for breath (at the very best). So personally, I’m relieved they’ve crystallised some very significant gains there.

Biffbaffboff - no, you haven't missed the results.

Thanks AustinTexas.

By reintroducing the logo into yesterday's presentation, I guess we can assume all is not yet lost with Coca Cola.

Any reformulation would always be tested on a very small scale first, as the brand's way too valuable to risk reputational damage. Back in the 80s, Coca Cola launched "New Coke", only to have to abandon it months later & reintroduce the original formula under "Coca Cola Classic". They won't want to make the same mistake twice.

Not sure how they'd overcome the cloudiness issue though.

I submitted a question during the presentation about Coca Cola’s logo suddenly appearing on one of the slides.

But like both my other questions, it was ignored.

If anyone can shed any further light on this, I’d be grateful.

It potentially feels significant. But as someone already posted, it could just be SOH stringing us along, despite knowing the discussions came to nowt.

AquaeSulis01 & rebarm - glad it wasn't just me!

Can either of you shed any light on the Coca Cola logo that appeared prominently on top of one of the slides?

Most/all the trickier questions from me (& others on here) were carefully ignored this afternoon. Wonder why?!

Well, they asked for feedback at the end, so I gave them plenty.

All pretty disapponting IMHO, with little to get your teeth into other than noncommittal sales projections, vague timelines & jam tomorrow statements.

Talking of leading US partners one minute, then projecting sales in the low £millions from them by year 5 just didn't stack up for me.

On a potentially more optimistic note, what was the Coca Cola logo doing on one of the slides? Have I missed something?

Yorkshirehussar - you know my thoughts on Tek only too well already.

Whilst its share price may continue to recover from the recent lows, adding is too much of a gamble until the company demonstrates it can crystallise profits from any of its holdings.

Much of the recent momentum has come from Microsalt’s rise. But Tek’s locked in there for several months still. A lot can happen (both good & bad) in the interim.

So Tek remains uninvestable for me, though I will retain my current holding in the hope (but not the conviction), I might claw back some of my losses there longer term.

I’m far more hopeful with IMM than Tek to be honest, but both remain a higher than average gamble.

I’d be as interested to know why Finance Yorkshire Seedcorn Fund is selling down its position, when Opti’s share price is currently so depressed anyway.

But I guess SOH may not know that. Or want to reveal it even if he does….

Someone who's deluded then dissolves himself?

Yorkshirehussar - I'm perfectly chilled thanks. Just stating facts

Newuncle - if the "CEO here already claimed INC valuation would be closer to £100m by year end", then they're definitely not to be trusted.

No-one knows what the share price of any company will be in the future. And anyone who claims to is just plain dodgy.

Spinal_Tap - I don't really know what comment management could make.

Just stating it's trading at a huge discount to NAV isn't likely to persuade many investors to increase. The discount's fairly common knowledge - and has been for ages. It's there for several reasons. But to avoid sounding too much like a cracked record, I won't go into them again.

Yes, he has increased from 7.56% to 8.21%.

The 8.21% includes 1.04% voting rights through financial instruments.

BillfromBristol - the share issue money DOES go into the portfolio companies.

But each fundraise dilutes the value of Tek's holding, as it increases the number of shares in issue.

NelsontheDog - in Microsalt's case, the value gap is mainly down to Tek being unable to sell any SALT shares for the first 12 months post-IPO. So its value is as yet unknown. Also, to date, Tek hasn't demonstrated it can unlock any value in any of its holdings. Rather than sell, it has held on, only to see the value of its Lucyd & Bell holdings plummet.

Hi Andrew7

You just need to register a free account with www.investormeetcompany.com

Once done, select Optibiotix from the company list & you'll be given the option to submit questions.

Let me know if any probs.

Bazzaman - that statement re: prescription lenses doesn't give the full picture IMHO.

Sure, margins may be increased by outsourcing the lens element. But:

a) Wholesale inherently has lower margins than DTC - like for like - as you're introducing a middleman who'll want their cut.

b) Unit revenues are bound to decrease, as you're no longer selling finished glasses - just frames.

AquaeSulis01 - they're going to wish they'd never done this Investor Meet session by the time we've all finished with them!

It'll be interesting to see how many (if any) of our tougher questions they actually address.

More on that abnormally large 35,000,000 share buyback last week.

It transpires the transaction has Elliott's fingerprints all over it.

They've now moved "below 5%" again, with some commentators speculating all 35,000,000 shares repurchased by the fund were from Elliott's sale:

www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1047440/scottish-mortgage-activist-laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank-1047440.html

At best, we won't know exactly how much skin in the game Elliott still has until they NEXT sell (or - less likely - buy). And even then, we may never find out (see below!).

As I understand it, shareholders are obliged to notify when their holding "reaches, exceeds or falls below 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% and each 1% threshold thereafter up to 100%".

The RNS after Friday's close relates to Elliott falling below 5%. But presumably that could mean they're already below 3%, as I believe they only have to notify once, when any threshold is triggered.

In which case, as they wouldn't have to notify again below 3%, we may never know!

Either way, I had hoped they'd be in it for longer at their full 5%+ level. Though they probably will still exert significant influence, even if they really have halved their holding as some commentators are speculating.......