Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

The daftest part of all this is that Shore Capital has a price target of 565p on HAT, even after their latest revisions:

“Nonetheless, a 565p share price forecast still represents a 21% upside against H&T’s 468p publication price.”

I really think brokers & analysts are best ignored. They’re mostly completely clueless and in some cases bordering on corrupt. I’ll carry on adding, prioritising my own research & gut feel over theirs, thanks all the same.

As I understand it from the link below, for Lucy to list it had to comply with the following:

$5.00 minimum share price on listing

$1.00 minimum share price ongoing

https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-finances/markets-and-listing-requirements.html#:~:text=Initial%20Minimum%20Bid%20Price%20for,credibility%20of%20the%20NASDAQ%20market.

There are also minimum market cap requirements to prevent a company from using excess dilution/consolidation to fudge the above rules.

CauldStream7 - there’s no evidence either way.

But the longer things drag on with no update, when we were promised one by calendar year end, the twitchier investors will become.

Cauldstream7 - I agree we’ll say goodbye to trading below 2p before long.

Whether it’s replaced with trading below 1p or above 2p largely hinges on Avion.

Hardboy - gawd knows! Logic would dictate that ALL retail & hospitality shares plummeted on the NLW announcement. But they didn’t. I doubt any weakness will last long & will continue to accumulate & collect the growing divis in the interim.

I also added today & HAT is now by far my largest holding.

Anyone who actually bothers rreading the broker note will see they say HAT "will face pressure on its operating costs when the National Living Wage goes up next April but increased funding capacity and higher-than-expected book growth will offset this." So what's the panic? One factor cancels out the other.

Unless there's something we don't yet know (which I very much doubt, as HAT's Directors have always been pretty transparent in the past), there's really nothing to see here. All white noise IMHO, which is why I added.

Don't forget, as recently as June 23, HAT's Chairman was a significant buyer at 444p. As was the CFO at 431p in Apri, and the CEO at 428p in March. They know what's going on and said in their August 2023 update:

"We are mindful of the impact upon our employees, suppliers and stakeholders of persistent inflation and rising interest rates. H&T is not immune to these factors, which have resulted in operating costs being higher than previously envisaged. However, much of this cost inflation is now factored into the cost run rate. We expect a lower level of cost inflation in the second half of the year which, alongside the growing revenue momentum of the business, puts us on track to deliver record profits in 2023."

I doubt much has changed ince August to knock those record profits off course. And once the NLW increase kicks in next April, HAT will simply adjust its retail prices and loan interest rates to offset this.

That’s as maybe Gotrader.

But markets aren’t forward-looking by 2 or 3 years. In fact, I don’t buy the argument they’re really forward-looking at all. And even if they were, there have just been too many black swan events recently which have thrown things off course. And I suspect these are set to continue. After all, how many analysts saw Covid coming? Or Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? Or Hamas’ incursion?

IQE may well be lining up several large orders which will start bearing fruit in 2025/6. But there’ll still be some pretty dismal figures in their results ahead of that. Which is why I’d wager the share price will dip below 20p again in the interim, even if it eventually rises well above this level. And why I wouldn’t even begin to add to my already decent holding unless we got a dip below 12p.

I may be wrong. But I was told by several posters on IQE boards I was wrong when I said the 20p placing price wouldn’t be the trough. And on that occasion at least, I was proved correct.

Seamanp911 - if you can’t see £7.95 for 170g is a massive barrier to mainstream consumer takeup, I really think you shouldn’t be investing at all.

As for typos on food labelling, that’s just plain sloppy & hardly inspires confidence in the manufacturer’s professionalism.

Cm22 - sure it tastes like salt (only more concentrated). Because that’s precisely what it is. Only more expensive. Way more.

Cauldstream - probably something to do with Avion calling all the shots now.

I’m not saying it will happen, but if they decided to pull the plug on trial funding it would be game over for IMM.

Mildchild - thanks for those interesting real life observations. You say "I can't see people putting this on their food on mass".

Unless scale up radically reduces the manufacturng cost (& hence its retail price), this will NEVER gain traction as a staple condiment on kitchen tables. Irrespective of some of the other issues you mention with this product.

Cm22 - it’s true US stocks tend to enjoy higher P/E ratios than their UK & European counterparts.

But that may just be because the US indices tend to attract higher quality companies with better earnings potential in the first place. Lucyd shows you what happens when a low quality business comes to market there. It crashes far more quickly (potentially being removed from the index just months after IPO’ing).

So I don’t think Tek would necessarily have fared much better there long term either.

Nimrod - how you judge SMT's performance largely depends on how long you've held it. 10 years and you're laughing. 3 or less and you're not.

I don't think you'll find the majoriity of regular posters on this board relentlessly pump the fund.

As for fat fees, if you think SMT's are bad, take a look at most other funds & ITs. SMT's are far lower than average.

Cm22 - you say "The businesses of Microsalt and BELL have had fantastic years even while the SP has fallen".

What prescisely are you on?

Microsalt hasn't even listed yet and Bell hasn't exactly flown (though admittedly there are a few encouraging signs with the latter).

Shame some of the cheerleaders here didn't take my advice in late September and switch into H&T when it was below £4.00. There's been a divi payout there in the interim too. And with Tek? Not so much.

Icarus321 - thanks; certainly some interesting ideas there.

Lowering the private % could only really be a longer term aim I guess, as & when their existing private holdings floated, with the proceeds then being reinvested into public companies.

SMT has gained access to the likes of Space X largely through its reputation as an early stage, supportive & exceptionally long term investor.

So my concern would be that any dramatic change of tack could lose them this reputation & leverage. It might also alienate a fair proportion of SMT’s existing investors who bought in on a long term view, precisely BECAUSE the fund’s gone big on speculative but potentially highly lucrative unlisted holdings.

Sure, that strategy’s been severely tested over the past few years. But less so if you look over longer timeframes (though admittedly, as you say, private holdings were less significant the further back you go).

Who knows, in another 4 or 5 years, 30% unlisteds could look like the dumbest move ever, with us all left scratching our heads as to how we could possibly ever have bought into it.

On the other hand it could, by then, also resemble an inspired bit of investment foresight, from which we’re once again reaping huge rewards….

Icarus321 - not quite sure what you’re proposing in terms of the unlisted holdings, given you think monthly/quarterly internal valuations are inadequate?

I agree that the current discount to NAV (whilst narrowing) is - at least in part - caused by uncertainty over the unlisteds.

But sentiment can change quickly. Or not!

Cauldstream7 - sadly, it’s NOT a given that I answer to you. Or anyone else come to that.

If you/Pokerchips can’t be bothered to look back for the evidence I gave at the time, I’d say that’s your loss, not mine.

MrAmericano - as Walp said, never any point in investing if it keeps you awake at night.

I wouldn't ignore investment trusts altogether though, as they can be a reasonably cost-effective option. And unlike OEICS, you can at least buy & sell at a known price.

Index trackers can also be low cost of course. And indeed, they always should be. Otherwise, even if they accurately track an index, they're always going to underperform it once the fees are factored in. Vanguard have a good reputation here. As I believe Fidelity do for their S&P 500 tracker. But I'm no expert in this area, so DYOR.

MrAmericano - I apologise if I got this wrong. It just looked totally at odds to me with all your previous posts & your reasoning.

But I appreciate different people have different objectives. And these can change over time - or following new advice received from others). Indeed, I've often said as much here.

Anyhow, good luck wherever you decide to park your cash. Just try not to move it around too often would be my main advice. Very often this just leads to chasing your tail & benefits no-one in the long term (except brokers/the government, who love all that extra commission/stamp duty!)

Pokerchips - trawl through my past posts. You'll soon find the ones highlighting an investor presentation/interview where he clearly gave false promises.

MrAmericano - Hmmmm.