Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

fel96 - think we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, the "rot" you refer to IS the discount - i.e. the difference between theoretical book value & likely achievable value (factoring in things like liquidity, forecast future inflation & interest rates, how "fashionable" the fund's main sectors currently are etc. etc.).

pokerchips - very unfair on Tim - when we all know he gets someone else to stir his coffee!

walp - I see NAV as a slightly blunt valuation tool, as it's always a backward-looking moment-in-time snapshot. Really what the NAV is saying is: "If a fund manager had pressed the ejector seat button at that particular moment and sold the lot, what might they have got back"? The problem is, as I said before, there are several other variables at work which NAV can't fully take into account. Like if a fund held 25% of a company & suddenly wanted out, it would be unlikely to achieve the latest full bid price. Using the ejector seat analogy again, a pilot might be tempted to bail immediately if they saw one of their engines was on fire. But if they did that, before checking whether they were still flying over water or were now above land, the outcome might be very different.

fela96 - Afraid I disagree. There are umpteen funds out there holding nothing but listed shares and they don't all trade at 0% discount to NAV. Often there's a significant valuation difference between a whole fund & the sum of its parts. Particularly if a fund's holding in any one company is significant (and would therefore be illiquid, should the fund become a forced seller). I guess it's the same principle when selling any asset. If you want to sell your house quickly, you can pretty much always do that. But you might get less for a quick sale today (with the property sector less buoyant due to higher interest rates & more nervous buyers) than if you were prepared to be flexible on timing.

lambo222 - whilst I'm normally highly critical of Tim, I actually think his pre-warning on potential FDA meeting date slippage was sensible. Otherwise everyone would assume the worst, when it could just indicate the FDA's struggling with backlogs.

fela96 - why would a 20% discount to NAV be "pricing in a collapse of the fund"? Surely it just indicates the risk premium investors currently attach to unlisted holdings, whose values are less transparent (however often they're reassessed). Senator1 - presumably the NAV already takes into account any potential defensive quality in preference (versus ordinary) shares. On a more general note, Meta & Amazon have both posted better than expected results over the last few days. Whilst SMT isn't a tech fund, it does have some significant exposure. So if the sector tide is beginning to turn (admittedly too early to say yet), there could be better times ahead.

My original comments didn't primarly refer to the UK anyway. They were more about the soaring (& subsequently falling) cost of energy, which is a global phenomenon.

fela96 - sure, but the UK is likely to mirror global inflationary trends. Just as it did on the way up.

fela96 - the rational argument for my view is that energy accounted for a large part of our recent inflation: hTTps://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/costoflivinginsights/energy. In March 2022, natural gas prices were highly volatile, ranging from 160p to 460p per therm. The average that month was around 350p: hTTps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwdwz5d8gxt/natural-gas. Fast forward a year & they're currently just over 90p per therm, never having revisited the 133p per therm level reached in early March 2023. Energy has a huge knock on effect in other areas including food & transportation. So an annual fall of that magnitude - which for the time being looks sustainable - will inevitably send the inflation rate tumbling. Though as Ubik_Fresh rightly points out, macroeconomic factors are particularly unpredictable right now. It would only take another Putin/pandemic & all bets would be off again.

Mine does on corporate actions. But AFAIK not with AGM resolutions.

CHRI5P - you think "inflation and higher interest rates .. are here to stay". I think inflation will halve by early 2024. I also think interest rates are close to their peak and will slowly settle in the UK to between 3% & 4% within the next 18 months. We can't both be right, so it'll be interesting to see who's closest!

wildbunch - easier said than done when your shares are in an ISA nominee account.

cm22 - other companies have gone down that route, only to find the US doesn't always value that highly either. Abcam being a prime example.

walp - correct. I'm a holder, but won't be adding.

@hash - but aren't you overlooking the upfront fee of US $50 million received for their IP transfer - see 22 03 23 RNS? Presumably as it's upfront, it forms part of 24 April's net debt position. If so, whilst net debt has fallen, that's only due to a one-off. Without which, they'd be roughly £28m more in debt (£38m @ H1 end - £26m now = £12m "improvement". £12m "improvement" LESS one-off US $50m IP fee = c. £28m INCREASED debt).

In that case, why couldn't Tim just be straight with investors, rather than trying "to be positive about the whole thing" (i..e. lying)?

fela96 - depends when you bought in. If you paid >£15, you're already down 60%. If you paid <£4, you're currently still quids in (albeit fewer quids!).

JDPT- "Woodfood decided to close down the management company" is a bit like "Truss/Raab decided to resign"!

walp - I agree that SMT v. WPCT is apples v. pears to a fair extent. But I don't think you can just blame the media/unhealthy speculation/complete conjecture for the recent huge underperformance. Even stripping out any discount, the total asset value of SMT's holdings has fallen dramatically since 2021. I'd argue high inflation, interest rate hikes & the consequent shift in investor sentiment from growth to value have far more to do with it than any media articles. I, too, suspect things here may look a bit rosier in 6-12 months' time. But I'd always advise against holding any investment purely on the basis it would feel too painful to sell at a huge loss. Rewind to Woodford and WPCT investors may well have felt something similar. And look how that turned out!

pokerchips - I remain invested precisely because - as you imply - Tim is no longer really running the show. If you feel McCarthy did a good job before the Avion hook up, that's fine. But you should maybe re-visit the share chart, as unless you stand on your head, it paints a rather different picture.