RE: After the results29 Jul 2024 10:46
i've changed my view on this one barchid following their change of strategy. their differentiator, for me has been, until now, the direct investment portfolio. they repeatedly lectured us at length on how their regional reach and early investment arms (vct and eis) gave rise to thousands of investment opportunities that they distil down to 20 or so of the very finest that go into the direct portfolio. furthermore, they boasted of having lots of dry powder on the balance sheet to invest at the bottom of the market in smes.
recently they’ve begun slipping into the conversation that the direct portfolio was, after all, just venture investing and now they won’t make any new additions to it. the spiel they gave us over the years is demonstrably a load of *******s.
the direct portfolio companies that attracted my investment – ndreams, oxgene, faradion, native antibody co – have been sold. the only one left that interests me is warwick acoustics and that isn’t enough to keep me involved with no prospect of new, exciting companies coming into the fold.
the sales they made were good but they have generated no value for long term shareholders. market cap at admission in 2014, plus cash raised in subsequent placings comes to £176m. the current market cap plus accumulated dividend payments is £162m. that’s a risible ten year performance.
the bulk of the current valuation is attributed to what’s left in the direct portfolio but a lot of the companies in it have been on the books for donkeys years and they obviously can’t find buyers.
without the interest of the direct portfolio i find this a bloated fund manager with excessive admin costs and a smug management that reward themselves too well with bonuses and share options in return for mediocre performance at best. the directors have boasted for years that they had 17% skin in the game but now chamberlain is out it’s around 2%. bah humbug!