Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

Hardboy - I presume you're either addressing TopCatz or 5percent, as they're the two main posters I filtered some time ago on here.

If so, up to you obviously but I really wouldn't bother if I were you. They both have clear agendas and - as you've probably already surmised - their posts are neither reasoned, consistent or informative.

By way of contrast, I find your posts both interesting & balanced, as I hope you do mine!

JLB58 & Seamanp911 - I haven't forgotten. Indeed, that's my whole point. Tek has woefully mismanaged its exit strategy - both here & elsewhere. They could easily have constructed an IPO deal to reduce their holding % from day 1.

No rule saying it has to be 12 months. Yet that's what Tek - in its infinite wisdom - thinks is best. Well it hasn't exactly turned out that way for BELL or LUCY so far. And yes, I AM having another dig at Tek, because their management team has proven itself to be clueless. Why else would this be a single digit penny share?

Dartron - Thought you were reinvesting in a different IT?

Least, that’s what you posted last week.

I guess SMT can be traded, but it’s a risky strategy IMHO. Especially when the trust specifically targets & markets itself towards long term investors.

Anyhow, good luck whatever your “plans”. But maybe don’t offer us a running commentary, especially when it appears so inconsistent.

Meconopsis - thanks. As the ST article (which I’ve now read) points out though, there have been recent funding rounds with some of SMT’s unlisted holdings. So it doesn’t have to be SMT doing the selling for a value point to be established.

I’m still not convinced selling 1% of your holding in an unlisted share would give investors that accurate a clue as to what the remaining 99% is worth. There could be umpteen reasons for selling, including a firesale where you’re never likely to achieve anywhere near market worth.

Meconopsis - I haven’t seen the ST article. But it seems slightly counter-intuitive to me that selling part of a holding which has yet to list would help unleash its full value. To me, it would look like prematurely jumping ship because you’d lost faith in it.

Or am I missing something?

Ali1947fish - assuming the ST’s correct, I think the managers are right to hold firm on SpaceX. For me, ByteDance is harder to call. Regulatory pressures have already led to original IPO timetable being jettisoned. Tricky to know whether the Chinese & Americans will soften or further harden their stance over time.

thefrogster - apologies for the typo. You are of course correct that the CGT allowance drops to £3K from 6 April. Still a significant decrease though, which is why I wanted to make the most of this year’s threshold now.

I sold a small part of my SMT stock on Thursday. Not because I can’t see it going any higher for now. But because a bit of it was held outside our ISAs & I wanted to maximise this tax year’s £6K CGT allowance before it drops to a measly £2K from next year.

That said, the discount to NAV has narrowed significantly since mid March & stock markets have had a decent run over the last week or two, so a pause for breath wouldn’t surprise me.

I may buy back in via the ISA, but only if I can get in a bit lower, as I remain overweight in SMT - even after this sale.

Ratboy1971 - Anne Ashworth (the answer’s in your link). Having looked her up, she’s a regular contributor to the Daily Mail for her sins.

Assuming you can forgive her for that, the article didn’t strike me as hugely controversial or inaccurate. Nor terribly informative though. Posters/readers here know it all already.

Badsterman - Happy Easter to you too. Here's hoping you don't end up with egg on your face!

Seriously, I hope Tek comes good, as I remain a holder here. But I won't be adding, as I currently just can't see how investors will ever be able to crystallise the value in any of Tek's holdings. To date, it's mostly been diluted by the regular placings needed simply to keep the lights on at Tek's existing/planned new ventures.

Personally, I wouldn't be swayed by Mr Printerland - or anyone else come to that - however successful & wealthy they may have been in previous walks of life. When all's said & done, Tek is a very different beast from a printer/consumables retailer.

Undercarriage - Tesla was certainly a factor in driving up (excuse the pun) SMT's share price .

However, SMT's previous highs weren't "MOSTLY due to Tesla's meteoric rise". Partly, yes. Mostly, no.

Whilst past success isn't necessarily a guide to the future, it does suggest a degree of stockpicking skill (along with some luck).

Nvidia is another more recent example, though I'm hoping they'll cash in some of their chips there before the AI bubble inevitably deflates somewhat.

Beyond these public holdings, you never know - one or more of their current unlisted investments could just become the next Tesla. SpaceX? Northvolt?

Badsterman - I presume your latest post is to Topcatz?

In which case, I wouldn't hold out TOO much hope for his chart predictions assuming you value your capital.

Just saying.

As Questor itself points out in the article below, they've sometimes got it wrong on SMT in the past. But an interesting summary nonetheless and I pretty much go along with their summary - namely "Buy* this high-risk, high-return fund for the long term but take profits when they occur".

*(in my case hold)

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/stocks-shares/questor-time-buy-scottish-mortgage-again/

Beachhouse - it's a tricky one with those unlisted holdings.

At presentations, the managers have gone to great lengths to highlight all the checks & balances they've built into their valuation process. They've stressed the arms length independence of their valuers (i.e. it's not the managers marking their own homework), as well as the relatively high valuation frequency.

So they can't really win either way - they'll always either be accused of over- or under-valuing these assets. Possibly even both simultaneously from different quarters!

When SMT was languishing in the 600-700p area, I think the main concern was with the PROPORTION of unlisted holdings, as they're inherently less transparent - so it's much harder to know their true value.

I doubt Elliott would (or could) persuade them to change their valuation methods, even if they feel they're being over-conservative. A policy u-turn of that sort would soon be spotted & could easily lead to accusations of the books being cooked to overstate NAV, causing significant reputational damage.

I guess they might try to pressurise managers into reducing the overall unlisted proportion through trade sales. But that might not please certain existing investors, who were attracted by the trust's relatively high unlisted content & saw this as the major long term growth driver. Alternatively, they might push for more lobbying of companies like SpaceX, urging them to IPO sooner rather than later. Whether this would fall on deaf ears though is anyone's guess.

IMHO, the enhanced buyback programme has Elliott's fingerprints all over it. And it was probably their trump card. But no doubt they've a few more tricks up their sleeve!

Oldnbald - on your final point, the proceeds from selling one or more listed holdings could immediately be reinvested into other listed holdings - thereby simply rebalancing.

It wouldn’t necessarily lead to an overall increase in the proportion of unlisteds.

Beachhouse - not sure how tradeable unlisteds like SpaceX would be right now?

Best time to find their true value might be when they IPO.

It'll be interesting to see how much influence Elliott can (& wants to) wield. I suspect the managers will hold firm on their existing unlisted investments. I also suspect the new buyback scheme was a direct result of Elliott's intervention.

AlexanderUK - you DO realise it was a joke?

As, I presume, was your assertion about "the effort and openness he has consistently shown towards engaging with investors."

GoldGirl - that answerphone WAS actually Tim speaking to you.

It’s well known everything he says is pre-recorded.

They're hardly likely to do a placing so soon after the IPO.

That would be commercial suicide.

More likely, as often happens with IPOs, the initial euphoria is wearing off and until new commercial deals are announced, things willl continue to drift.

Doubtless Tek will - as ever - hang onto its full holding until Salt's initial float premium has well & truly disappeared.

Oldnbald - no need to apologise!

Whilst I don't have a subscription to The Times, this non-paywall summary might help you:

www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1043857/scottish-mortgage-asked-to-get-real-on-private-holdings-like-spacex-bytedance-1043857.html

Where's Wally (aka Lambo222)?

And where's that placing he repeatedly said was imminent?