Member Info for Spikeyj

threeputt, thanks for good posts, agree with christian, refreshing to see a bb with some variation to the discussion and without personal abuse. i still have a holding here, although have had some slices stopped out higher. obviously, pretty disappointed, but some you win, some you lose, and i still like the company, but clearly sentiment hard hit. agree woodford's holding RNS insignificant as an amount, but prob meant to signal intention. (but no binding promises, lol).

bobby, putting it simply: imagine you own shares priced at 1.10p per share in a company which has underlying assets whose actually value, if split up and disposed of right now, are 1.00p per share. so there is a 10% premium to NAV. if the company issued new shares, this means asking new investors to put money into the company pot. in principle, if those new investors were to agree to buy at what the shares are actually 'worth', they would be doing so at a price reflecting NAV, 1.00p, since that is actually the value of what they are getting for their new money. so if the company manages to persuade them to buy for 1.05p, then the company has actually 'banked' an additional cash profit in its accounts of 0.05p per share, since the company has been paid more per share than the underlying assets are actually worth. hence, the company has made money, retained it, and so the NAV of the company's shares rises above 1.00p purely because of that new money. (how much depends on ratio of new to old shares). the snag for existing investors with a short-term view, is that although the NAV per share rises (underlying actual value), in the short term it is likely that the current market share price will fall a little (e.g. because some could just choose to sell at market price and buy the new shares!). short-term traders are not that interested in the underlying value, just the share price, as they will want to get out soon. but longer term holders should be pleased, as the underlying value per share increases, which in theory will *eventually* be reflected in higher sp. (provided the additional size of the fund doesn't make it too hard to run).

oh, sorry, just saw bdog posted that already, apols.

over the longer term, it's very likely that the discount would narrow anyway. this action by woodford perhaps partly to 'manage' that by encouraging the discount to narrow earlier, but more gradually, in calmer steps. (although if one did not believe that the discount would ever narrow from present high level, one would not want woodford to have issued these new shares) if the company was wound up tomorrow, return we would theoretically get would be the NAV per share. the NAV per share will be increased from issue of new shares above NAV, so underlying value *is* being added. (distinction between value and price needs to be understood.) it's true to say that there are a fair few others in the market who are a bit critical of the size of this fund, and worry that woodford's ideas are good, but this might be too unwieldily. meanwhile, not sure if this is posted already, hargreaves comment: http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/woodford-patient-capital-full-portfolio-released?utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=E00MR_Daily%20update_no%20video_no%20tips%20news%20new%20(5)&utm_content=www_hl_co_uk_news_articles_woo&theSource=E00MR&Override=1&sp_mid=49310968&sp_rid=ai5kYXZ5MkBudGx3b3JsZC5jb20S1

the bit from woodford that i am prepared to use as reassurance (tho' of course i know 'even' he might be wrong...) is wood ford's confidence that the UTW books seem trustworthy. i.e. they use a fairly aggressive revenue recognition approach, but one that doesn't seem designed to try to hide something else. i'm prepared to grit my teeth and lose money investing in a high growth stock where a company makes honest best efforts but which eventually don't pay off, but i don't want to gamble on shares where the books are so cooked you don't actually know what's going on in first place.

i suppose it will depend rather on whether people buy the argument made by the company that it's about investing in additional headcount etc. in order to win new customers, and if that actually happens? -- if as time goes on the customer retention rate drops significantly, and/or they can't show good progress with new customers instead of just extensions, then trouble. (and more forensically, perhaps also whether there are any other costs being hidden or bundled in with costs more genuinely associated with targeting new biz.)

but is it because storm has passed, or because we are in the eye of the storm? .... more coffee and croissant needed. gla.

seldom hurts to let the storm pass first, see what is left when the wind drops.

being given a good old shake

i think it may depend what device you read on? i usually write and read on a mac air, but probably text displays different on e.g phones, android tabs? dunno. probably i'm just disjointed to begin with.

"As of August 7, 2015, our total position is 4.99%. Specifically: FIT, Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund owns 1,504,544 shares or 1.37% FIT, Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund owns 1,982,802 shares or 1.81% Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities, LP owns 486,592 shares or 0.44% FIT, Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund owns 407,730 shares or 0.37%" interesting arithmetic... methinks they should spend some of their profits on a new pocket calculator?

lol, sean my secret twin, separated at birth. no rottweiller me, more a nosy, incontinent puppy. just stick my snout into things with tail wagging. sean, who seems back on the bbs now, differs a bit for example in being much more focused than i, i just flit around, and also i think he tended/ tends to get rather more passionate than i re the various issues. mostly, i find bb stuff just interesting rather than stirring (tho' i do dislike bad language, mostly upbringing i guess.)

but on the bright side, it presumably got progressively easier to buy that £700 as the morning went on.

sure, of course. your holdings entirely your biz. i'm just interested in general about how people's language shifts over time, which sometimes just reflects sentiment shifts rather than anything else. very natural. as with your absolute quantity vs proportion explanation, it's sometimes just about where people have wanted / needed to shift their attention or point of reference (e.g £££, vs % portfolio). and of course, sadly, my own interest in UTW now takes up rather less of my portfolio that it did yesterday : ( utw still getting slapped, some offloading underway.

but the thermostat has been turned up a notch or two.

(just as a small bye the bye, presume you know that the full holdings list for wpct has now been published, yesterday, with utw holding showing circa in the 20s ranking by size order, i think, of the different companies.)

yesterday, after spooked: "I still have plenty in my SIPP" today: "I only hold in my SIPP at present and that is not a lot" make your mind up george, lol! but yes, good call by you to have reduced. seriously, i agree with you re caution at this point. i'm still holding, & fairly happy to do so at present, tho' certainly not chuffed, but i am not looking to add. if they get the growth they are after, will come good, but as per some of the issues that affected e.g. the T share, management teams need to avoid over-reaching, and need to be realistic about what their own capabilities. utw is getting a second reality-check, but we will need concrete evidence to prove that they can listen to it. atb.

from previous commentary by woodford about such companies he invests in, his first step is likely to be to offer some 'friendly advice', as a would be LTH with a lot more patience than most of us. but second step might then depend on what the company's receptivity to such advice. it would be sensible for utw to listen to him. oh well, small earthquake, not too many dead at this point, but not a delight either.

mind you, that's the same director, hart up, who sold half a million shares two years before that at 2.65, so his timing sometimes a little off, lol.

but looking at p/e only in pharma doesn't take you that far, since many of the choices between different pharma companies are actually bets on rather different kinds of strategies or business models, not just about which company will implement efficiently. e.g. http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2015/07/10/shares/sectors/the-big-four-in-big-pharma-wJ1B854AwkHMHEk6S5GKaN/article.html clinigen not mentioned in that artlce, but the broader point is, you need to think about what clinigen's strategy is, and whether that specific pharma strategy is one to back. then you ask price...