Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

InGodwetrust - no wonder your fallback is to trust in God if you actually believe what you just wrote.

Agricore - 1) As most rational people know, a pandemic + war have completely changed the way individual companies are valued compared to 2016. There has been heavy rotation from growth to value stocks, coupled with a much more cautious approach to "jam tomorrow" type start ups. Global interest rates have changed beyond recognition during that time, making shares relatively less attractive as an asset class. Relying on seven year old evidence to assess today's market is just plain bonkers.

2) There's no contradiction at all if you actually bother reading what I wrote. NAV prices can be both accurate yet totally irrelevant if there's no clear mechanism to unlock the holdings' value.

3) You've no idea how the float % of Lucy was determined. And I never said TEK should have sold its full stake. Just a part of it. Sure, that might have deflated the float price slightly. But not half as much as it's been marked down since. Investors clearly paid way over the odds for LUCY at IPO. How else do you explain the 1 year share price chart.

PS: I wouldn't bother coming back with further rebuttals, as I shan't respond. Life's too short.

Even if the economy remains stable (doubtful given the impact lag with interest rate rises), HAT should prosper. More stores are due to open in H2. Travel seasonality means Forex will generate greater profits in the coming half too. The fall in retail margins seems to have been addressed & is forecast to reverse going forwards. Borrowing costs are higher, but this should be offset by a corresponding increase in the pledge book loan rate. Still looking good for full year to me.

Agricore - 1) Your counter-argument relies on Bloomberg stats from 2016. The market's completely different today. It also hinges on TEK's holdings securing takeovers at a premium. Not much sign so far. In Lucyd's case, the share price has dropped so dramatically since IPO that even if it were taken over at a premium, it would likely be worth far less than the IPO price. 2) I'm not disputing the NAV prices of TEK's holdings. However, I'm saying NAV is completely academic in this instance, as TEK currently has no obvious mechanism to release value to shareholders. How else do you explain TEK's share price being at such a discount to the sum-of-its-holdings NAV valuation? Yes, I do own TEK shares and yes they're still worth something. But for the time being their value continues to move in only one direction for the reasons given above. I continue to hold, as my TEK investment forms a relatively small part of my total portfolio, so I can afford to see if things improve when Microsalt's IPOs. But unless they structure the float in a radically different way from LUCY, it's hard to see how this will lift TEK's SP sustainably. 3) Because of the ill-conceived way LUCY's IPO was structured, TEK has indeed been heavily diluted, yet it's gained nothing from the price froth at launch. Bizarrely, you ask for evidence of this price froth when it's right in front of your nose. Just Google "Lucy share price" & select the 1 Year tab. You'll soon see what I mean.

I won't be posting further on MRNA, as it's been done to death already. Agreed about ASML though.

Agricore - whilst TEK may look undervalued currently, I’d argue your holding prices are totally unrealistic. TEK is a majority/significant holder in most cases. So if it tried to offload all its shares in one go, a) how on earth would it find the buyers? & b) the market would soon get wind, marking down the share prices of its holdings accordingly. Which is precisely why TEK trades at such a discount to a sum-of-parts valuation. And why I’ve said all along that it should have incorporated a divestment mechanism at IPO stage, when there’s usually more froth in the price. As an example, just take a look at Lucy’d IPO price and how dramatically it’s dropped in just a few months since.

Now can we talk about other things!

We’re probably all agreed that SMT’s more recent Moderna top ups were, with the benefit of hindsight, ill-timed. Not sure though why fela96 states Moderna isn’t “on a clear path towards making money”, when it’s been highly profitable these past two years and its latest figures surprised to the upside (albeit with a loss in the 3 months to 30 06 23): https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/m/moderna-inc-usd0.0001/financial-statements-and-reports. Businesses like MRNA are highly cyclical, with huge investment requirements which may or may not pay off. So of course they’re risky. But once a share demonstrates a clear path to consistent profitability, it will have re-rated accordingly. So you either get in before then and accept the probability of large paper/real losses along the way. Or you wait and pay a much higher entry price for being cautious, should things come good.

Could we possibly stop fixating about Moderna now & move on? After all, nobody knows if MRNA's going to plummet or rise over the time SMT decides to hold it. Analysts have no more clue than you or I (arguably a lot less in most cases, as they're largely brain dead). MRNA's price has yet to collapse, though it IS trending lower and has obviously fallen significantly from the pandemic peak. Even so, debating potential reputational damage to SMT (beyond any hit to NAV) is nothing more than idle speculation at this stage. After all, who saw Covid coming (and the impact it would have on Moderna's SP)? Back in 2019 - when MRNA traded at around a seventh of even its current level - you could have argued this was a share going nowhere fast. Which would have been a bit of a schoolboy error. What's more, even in a worst-case scenario for Moderna, I suspect SMT would recover fairly quickly. And before you ask, no I can't prove or backtest this theory, any more than others can say the opposite with any degree of certainty. In short, forget Moderna for now. It's broader sector & geographic trends we should really be concentrating on. They're likely to influence SMT's trajectory far more than one individual holding (representing less than 7% of SMT's portfolio @ 30 06 23).

Not sure why peeps are fretting so much about Moderna. Despite being one of SMT’s larger holdings, its success or failure isn’t going to influence SMT’s SP that severely. 50p or so max retrench if Moderna were to go bust tomorrow. Which ain’t gonna happen.

Intergalacticmis - probably more sensible to wait for Moderna’s earnings before speculating/scaremongering on how they might influence SMT. And as SMT’s MRNA holding is « only » around 6%, unlikely to knock over 6% off the trust price, unless Moderna goes bust immediately after announcing its figures. Which seems a tad unlikely to me.

Er, thought you were advocating backtesting a couple of days ago, fela96?

Dontshootme- Cathie Wood may not be daft, but she has a very chequered history. So I really wouldn’t read too much into her trades. Take a look at ARK’s long term performance & you’ll see what I mean.

Protonbull - when it comes to the stock market, nothing is ever safe to presume.

I’m quite cheerful being invested here. Depends what price you got in at I guess. Anyhow, let’s all try to remain civil & dispense with the personal attacks, which belong in the playground. And yes, I know I’ve occasionally been guilty in that department myself. But we can at least try!

I really wouldn’t waste even £1.49 on TW. The man looks like he sleeps under a railway arch & his tips are about as reliable as an 80s Skoda.

Suggest we bring the discussion back to SMT. Rather than Musk, whose businesses are a significant but still relatively small part of SMT's total holdings.

Fair enough. Apologies if I overdid things, fela96 - I’ll let sleeping dogs lie for now. In terms of Cathie Wood’s AI predictions, I wouldn’t pay TOO much attention to her. She’s hardly called everything right these past 5 years. Just take a look at ARKK’s share price performance. Almost makes SMT’s stand out!

Fela96 - sure, let’s get rid of patents because they can’t always be properly enforced. Whilst we’re about it, let’s get rid of all laws too, as the smartest criminals will always find ways round them. Perhaps rather than an AI bot, you’re actually Liz Truss or KamaKwazi in disguise. Determined to argue the toss on just about anything & shake up the status quo. Without properly thinking through all the consequences. Still, we know that all ended well, so what could possibly be the harm!

Re: Musk, he’s certainly marmite. I’ve mixed feelings about him myself and would say he’s definitely well on the spectrum (not that that’s a criticism - just different). I think when you’ve his level of wealth you can afford to take huge gambles and to hell with the consequences. So criticising him for losing a decent portion of his wealth is kinda missing the point when he created that vast wealth in the first place.