Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

Leistertheinvestor - And you think Adastra IS "an unbiased analyst who can be used to invest YOUR money"?

No!

And that's really the point I'm making.

MrA - I’d say that largely depends on how long the issue lasts.

If short-lived, it may well be absorbed within the supply chain. Longer lasting & the costs would have to be passed on.

Adastra - if a P3 trial misses its endpoints, that’s a spectacular fail. Period.

If you think otherwise, take a look at IMM’s share price shortly before & after the last P3 readout.

The advfn poster I mentioned earlier has been saying for years their trial dosing was WAY too low. He’s now saying IMM’s decision to ignore FDA recommendations in terms of the new trial format is a potentially fatal mistake.

And, with respect, he has - I suspect - got far more experience in this field than you or I.

Maybe he just changed names?

Adastra - despite frequent past promises of regular newsflow, IMM's communications have remained very patchy & sporadic. Why's this suddenly going to change?

Yes, the previous trial demonstrated a good safety profile. It also spectacularly failed to meet the endpoints. Water also has a good safety profile, but is of zero value to Lupus sufferers.

IMM is going against the FDA's advice by adopting a straight phase 3 trial (with dose ranging) rather than a phase 2/3 adaptive trial. Someone on advfn - who has far more experience in this field - thinks it's highly unwise to ignore an FDA recommendation. And logic suggests they'd be right.

Tambo210 - I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I meant.

The phrase "lies, damned lies & statistics" isn't generally used to accuse someone of lying. But of selectively trotting out statistics to back up an (often shaky) argument. That was my intention anyway, but apologies if it came across otherwise.

Whilst you never denied my points about SMT's highly profitable Meta trades, you completely failed to mention them, preferring instead only to accentuate the negatives.

Your post said - "trace back to anywhere in the first half of 2020, and extrapolate to today, and they still missed out on some impressive gains. META has been generating a ton of cash. Why would you not buy that stock back sooner?"

Exiting at around the $230 mark three and a half years ago wasn't such a bad move, when Meta's share price has been highly volatile since then. Yes, they could have achieved more. But as gotoutjustintime rightly points out, they'll have reinvested Meta's proceeds elsewhere. Possibly earning investors a lot more than by staying put an additional three and a half years.

As I mentioned previously, there's no real point in continuing endless posts between us, as it's unlikely we'll get anywhere. So the one piece of advice I'll take from you is to add you to my short filter list & have done.

Tambo210 - once again lies, damned lies & statistics I'm afraid.

What you FAIL to mention is that SMT was an EARLY investor in Meta back at IPO stage in May 2012. Then, the share price was $38. SMT eventually sold this holding in June 2020, when Meta's share price hovered around the $230 mark.

So roughly SIXFOLD growth in 8 years.

In the three and a half years since June 2020, Meta's share price has fluctuated dramatically - between about $90 & $378. So yes, with 20:20 vision SMT could have sold out for more. But they could equally have sold out for a lot less. Personally, I'll take SIXFOLD growth in 8 years. Not sure quite what you're expecting. But the sooner SMT clears 810p & you sell out, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Tambo210 - no point in constantly arguing the toss with you, as I don't think it'll change anyone's mind. So this'll be my last response for now.

Suffice to say, you seem to be basing most of your views on performance over the past 2 years. Indeed, your latest post refers to "24 months of decline". Whilst undeniable, it's also largely irrelevant unless you bought into SMT without reading their Key Facts document. This document clearly highlights potential volatility & suggests a minimum 5 year hold.

Meconopsis - I fully agree with the point you make in Slater's case.

That said, time served isn't always a good indicator of ability.

Most of us can probably point to someone at work who's climbed the greasy pole & clung on for ages despite being utterly useless.

Whilst Slater seems pretty switched on, I'm not so sure about Burns. To me he doesn't present as well or come across as particularly dynamic. I guess he might excel on the research side though. What do others think?

Xviolet - Tim McCarthy is Chair of Incanthera.

That's all the research you need to do.

Tambo210 - to insinuate similarities between SMT & Woodford by saying "you can't hide behind a disclaimer and operate as a wild west fund" is just plain misleading. And you well know it.

Woodford always marketed his income fund as a RELATIVELY stable investment offering a decent yield. Yet he then went off & invested a sizeable chunk into something completely different - unlisted companies & sectors he had little-to-no experience in. The rest, as they say, is history.

SMT hasn't hidden behind any disclaimer. Its Key Facts document spells out the relatively high risk & volatility inherent in its investment strategy, recommending a minimum 5 year hold. If investors choose not to read/heed this advice, how can it be SMT's problem?

Walp - I think we’re all in danger of going round in circles here.

When SMT was flying 3 years ago, no-one complained. Now it isn’t, the detractors are suddenly out in force.

I guess it’s all down to human nature, when you invested & your average buying price.

As meconopsis pointed out, Baillie Gifford DOES specify the type of investment SMT represents and the sort of people it might be suitable for. It seems to me that many of those who say they’ve recently sold out (or intend to) should never really have bought SMT in the first place.

Nobody knows how it’ll fare in future and the arguments on both sides are already well versed. Investors who might need their money back within the next year or two and are worried SMT could drop further should probably cut their losses and concentrate on lower risk holdings in future. Those who are happy with the risks and more flexible in terms of encashment might want to hang on.

Yesterday’s close was Bid 421p, Ask 427p.

Today, LSE shows a 10p drop to Bid 416p, Ask 429p. Go figure.

Presumably, maths isn’t their strong point.

Lordmakealotthenlosethelot - It doesn't look like the MMS felt sorry for very long.

MrAmericano - any private investor doing even the most basic research already knows SMT is high risk & volatile.

And if you don't research the basics, you've really only got yourself to blame.

Tom78 - Scottish Mortgage DOES have a yield. As you'd expect with any investment targeting long term growth, it's far smaller than MNG's at around 0.6%. But a yield nonetheless.

As if to illustrate my point, HAT's share price is shown at today's close UP 1p at Bid 421p, Ask 427p.

Earlier today it was shown as DOWN 9p at Bid 412p, Ask 429p.

By endlessly fiddling around with the spread, you can create any story you like.

I like the quality of Superdry's stuff. But I've never owned any of their shares (despite being tempted once or twice, then luckily thinking better of it).

My (admittedly unscientific) hunch is that at full price, Millenials & Gen Z simply find them WAY too expensive. Quality or not.

This has led to a shift away from their core market - towards older customers with higher disposable income. Which in turn makes them even less desirable in the eyes of said Millenials & Gen Z.

All of which creates a bit of a problem. Discounting is likely to be the only real way to attract younger customers back. But the company's desperately trying to get away from this approach. And to me, Superdry's gross margin simply looks much too low for a clothing company. Which suggests - Either they're paying their suppliers a hefty premium for any extra build quality / brand distinctiveness (does the word even exist?!). Or they're still having to discount more than they'd like. Or possibly both of the above.

They also seem to offer an overly large product range with tons of overlap (unless they're just always merchandising previous seasons' stock alongside the current offering & hoping nobody notices). Add in all the size permutations & hey presto, you've suddenly got masses of skus. A fair proportion of which are just too similar to other lines. So are only ever likely to shift through heavy discounting.

Either way, repeatedly blaming poor sales on the weather is a classic retail get-out clause. And like Monopoly's Get Out Of Jail card, you can really only play it once without cheating. Especially when Next keeps releasing good results & is - after all - largely at the mercy of the same meteorological conditions.

Sorry - just my very long-winded musings as to why the share price continues to drift.

Tambo210 - switching from SMT to LGEN/MNG would certainly be a radical move. Chalk & cheese springs to mind!

I could understand buying LGEN/MNG to help diversify a portfolio which already had SMT in it. But a full blown u-turn from one to t'other sounds like you might just be chasing your tail somewhat?

Over the past 5 years, unless you were lucky enough to time your sales & purchases almost perfectly, it's unlikely you'll have noticed a HUGE improvement in LGEN/MNG's share price. Both tend to be fairly range bound. As you say, their main attraction is the high yield. Though of course this is always liable to change (for better or worse).

Adastra - but what if the delays (plural) aren't down to that?

And what if the acquisition ultimately doesn't go ahead?

A lot of the time with H&T, share price movement (both up & down) is largely down to marketmakers fiddling around with the spread.

It's happened again this morning. LSE's currently showing a price drop of just over 2% (9 pence). Whereas in reality, all that's happened is the spread has widened to 17p (Bid 412p, Ask 429p). Not long ago, that same spread was in the mid single digits.

H&T's imminent trading update will be illuminating. Personally, I doubt anything's knocked the company significantly off course since 17th November 2023, when the CFO said "We have continued to see good growth in the pledge book in the second half of the financial year, with sustained demand for our products and services, and the investment we are making in our store estate is expected to underpin future growth. The new facility, alongside our existing long-standing support from Lloyds, will enable us to grow our pledge book further in FY24."

Had there been any major reason behind early December's share price drop from around 470p to below 400p (briefly), I imagine the company would be legally obliged to RNS it. If I'm wrong, the current share price volatility is more understandable - and the trajectory is likely to worsen. But I still find this scenario highly unlikely, given the steady stream of positive updates & Director share buys at higher than current price levels. So for now, I'm not losing any sleep over these short term price jolts.