Member Info for Senator1

The EMH just says all information is in the price. You might disagree with the price but in my experience the market is the best fundamental analyst that exists. The SPIVA data proves it and has done for over 25 years. Generally when people dismiss the market or say its crazy, more otften than not, the market is way ahead of them in understanding the real situation. On the SMT discount, the market is clearly saying it is not prepared to accept 8-10x Revenue multiples no matter who you are or what your growth is. So if market is implying a 50-60% discount it is clearly saying it wants 4-5x multiples for these cos. That's it, right now market doesnt care they recently funded at 8x, they want 3-5x for the bigger names and the smaller ones forget them. The market is smart, dont listen to it at your peril.

£668M at weighted average discount of 35% to last funding round and perhaps more concerning £462M at weighted average revenue multiple of 8.4x. Those are facts as presented by the AR. 8.4 x Revenue is a hell of a valuation multiple in 2023, I could easily make a case for 4x, that lobs £230M off the valuation and maybe another 15% of the last funding round, call that £100M, Total £320M. Take that off net assets of 1.2bn and you are at £870M divide by 153M shares and you are at £5.89 and apply 20% discount gives you TP of £4.54, 67% from yesterday. BUT maybe market not willing to give 4x Rev multiple and only a 50% discount to last funding. Adjust as you want but MARKET is the smartest fundamental analyst out there, thats why 90% or so of the professionals don't beat it. Crazy it definitely isnt.

We have discussed before a 20% discount on the total is a 65% odd when solely applied to the privates. Molten is trading at a 60% odd discount to Nav, with annual results last week. There is no question that SMTs top 5 privates are much bigger than the much smaller cos that Grow invest in but the 60% plus discount is the same. At least market is consistent.

What MF dont say and should is that SMT hold Northvolt, not at $12bn but $11.4bnbn, SpaceX at $144bn not $137bn and ByteDance at $208bn not $220bn. Those are pretty easy calcs to make based on the 2022 AR. So SMT is essentially valuing their holdings at the last ordinaries valuation while holding Prefs. The defensive quality of Pref holding is not recognised by market and SMT need to do better explaining this, especially to a mostly retail investort base.Without knowing the exact amount of ordinaries and the ranking of the Prefs it is hard for market to value the Prefs and hence the broad brush approach of market. SMT could improve on this understanding if they wanted to. I suspect the reason they dont is because of the NDAs or perhaps it makes little difference. But in any event what is clear is that SMT are valuing at last funding round, for the most part.

What you still dont understand is there is NO FOLLY., they haven't failed on what they control. There is no debate on that. Nobody rationally can say SMT is a failure, it just isn't. I think their focus on growth and transformation is right. I would just like them to be a bit more nuanced. One ex of what I mean is that anyone investing in SMT is inherently running a long cable position. This has worked wonderfully over last decade be will that still be case. Why dont they run rolling cable forwards to hedge this exposure. If I want cable exposure I dont need SMT I can do that separately, so I want SMT to hedge it which they don't. When Tech is out of favour, like all of 2022, why not have a macro tech short to mitigate the 2022 losses. Again they dont even entertain this sort of discussion. The investment world is among the most dynamic of occupations. I am weary of someone taking a 0.3% management fee on nearly £9bn and saying that annual evaluations are irrelevant. Share the pain and we can talk about irrelevance. How much pain can you really feel if you are taking £30m p.a. irrespective of performance. That's what annoys me or worse they have collected £150M before they entertain criticism. Nice gig if you can get it.

You do make stupid comparisons. Management create value, the Nav. What investors (dumb and otherwise) pay for that at anytime is up to them. Mgmt dont affect that and hence they have a valid case to be evaluated on value created, hence they beat their benchmark over 5 years on what THEY CREATED. Why do you think they are paid on Nav. They are not stupid, or living in Thailand. They expect to be paid for what they create and that is way every manager running an investment trust is paid.. What you in your delusional stupid comparisons pay for that is thankfully up to you and they could care less. Shares are fungible, houses are not, ridiculous comparison.

The Nav IS the value of SMT, the clue is in the V. The closing share price only reflects the price arrived at by the closing auction and reflects what that subset consider the VALUE to be worth. Yesterday 2m shares traded all day, call that £14M. Are you saying that minority out of a £9bn market cap decide the value. That is the tail wagging the dog is ever there was a case of such a thing. The Nav has as much right to repr4esent the value of SMT as a tiny minority trading on a particular day. I dont think you understand what a share price is and what it means. 14m out of £9bn market cap is 0.15% and you argue that they decide the value. Nonsense. Share price just reflects buys and sells on a particular day driven by all sorts of motivations, says nothing about value. Your in the wrong game if you think it does.

Not on a Nav basis it doesn't lose to its benchmark! The fact investors, for now, dont believe daily Navs which I think are prudent from work I have done is a different argument. I will never accept that the worlds 5/6th largest economy has a niche stock market. Greece is niche, Ireland, Portugal....but not the UK. In declines, yes but cable trades loads and it is not an issue for any international investor to hedge sterling exposure. I dont buy that everything below US, Euro and Remimbi is niche, sry.

Fair enough, but it does leave the fair question, perform relative to what? Zero, some equity index, LT gilt yield., property yield..........................the list goes on. You have to put it in some sort of context and maybe that is for each individual to decide. On their website SMT use the FTSE All World index and on a Nav basis they beat it, on a share price basis they don't. Is that the right benchmark? Should we use Nav or SP? Or should we just all move to Thailand?

I dont know what the right comparator is for SMT, given a 70:30 mix. However, what you cannt say is that a share that has returned 36.9% over 5 years or 6.48% CAGR is failing. That is factually untrue. We have spoken on this board before that this is largely a retail share not an institutional share. Its individuals saving through ISAs, pensions......loads of reasons. These will be UK individuals making decesions on where to put their money. So, those individuals that will compare to putting money in to UK funds will feel good about their SMT decesion where they will have had no return. The more sophisticated might think about other comparators but a large body will compare against the FTSE 100 or 250. Their analysis will centre on how much they made not on whether it is the "right" benchmark and they will think 6.48% compounded when their cash was earning nothing was quite good & smart. The Thai example has no relevance and does not reflect the actual position of the majority retail investor base in SMT. Therefore you won't get much support for a failing tag on SMT even confining yourself to the 5 year view. The LT average return of the S&P 500 since Dec 1990 is a CAGR of 8.20%. So to answer your question, FAILING? Definitely not, not even over 5 years. And over same period SMT has done 11.97% compounded. So using Failure and SMT in same sentence makes no sense. Was their better over last 5 years, sure. But failure, definitely not.

Its true Apple's market cap is almost equal to the FTSE 350, only about £200bn short in sterling terms. Not sure £2.5 trillion market cap of FTSE 350 is best described as niche. It's in decline for sure & the decline of GBP against the Dollar since the GFC is remarkable. Given the GFC was exported by the US to Europe because European & UK banks believed the slick Wall St sales patter on CDOs and CDOs squared which clearly no one understood, including the mathmatical geeks who ran the trading rooms back then. Most investors compare returns relative to their own backyard, that is natural and totally rationale. An investor can benchmark it against anything they want. Their money, their rules

That sort of depends. Depends on what you compare it to. For ex, over last 5 yrs SMT +37.68%, S&P 54.13%, Nasdaq 100 103%. So they definitely lost out here. BUT as a UK investor, if you compare to FTSE 100 + 18.7%, FTSE 250: +1% or World Index ex US: +10.48%. So depends what you compare to. I suspect a lot of UK investors will use FTSE 100 or 250 or some composite. I know that not like for like but nothing is like for like, SMT.

Your welcome

The Dow Jones is a price weighted index and as such extremely dangerous to use to measure a market performance. The stock with the biggest price has biggest weighting. The only advantage it has is it makes the maths easy. The S&P 500 is up 19.67% from the Oct low, thats not rangebound. Another .33% and its officially in a bull market.

if you go back to pre-internet bubble, 31/12/99; smt up 930.7%, nasdaq 292.63%, netflix 33,753.51%, msft 818.2% and meta 609.15% and berkshire 810.96% and nvidia 42,976.97%. all have 23.45 yrs data. so james andersen did a marvellous job and handed something of poisoned chalice to his two deputies. buffet is often revered as the lt investor but andersen sitting in edinburgh with a much lower profile did a great job, no question. will the future generation be able to make 10.46% compounded returns over 23 odd years out of lt fundamental investing, be that with publics or privates. buffet himself has said he wont consistently beat the s&p but then he does manage much more than £9bn so maybe their is hope for smt. everything evolves and i just want them to add some tactics to their ****nal and not answer every question, "yes but you must evaluate us over 5 years". in today's fast moving world that is an extreme luxury that few, as managers, are afforded.

The article is correct, 13F filings are public. Anyone can get the data

From Dec to March 31 they bought $855M AMD. None were placed in SMT. You will never find out from 13F where the shares were allocated but the 31-3-23 AR of SMT confirms none went there. That was their biggest purchased followed by Samsara and Solar Edge. Biggest sales Salesforce, First Republic and Illumina & in fourth place NVIDIA!!! Lol, its true, they sold in Q1 $380M worth. Where it was taken from, easy to find out but lots of work.

artificially inflated? oh no, its very real. real money doing a real job. couldnt be less artificial, the b---****, thats a better contender for artificial, imo

AI fell 9% yesterday and is down 20% pre-market. I hope someone at SMT is doing some meaningless maths rather than star gazing, waffling or some combination

A simple, MEANINGLESS calculation, lol