Member Info for Velo

Well, well, well. :)
Surprised no one's noticed, or queried it, but have you noticed with today being XD day, that the SP closed higher than yesterday's close - the day before XDday!

Quite rare that but not with SLP :)

Well I'm attempting to ride the coat tails of the tree-shakers, so will see what comes out in the wash. Will I get lucky? :) :) :)

Summary:

2021 the SP kept on rising from XD day until peaking higher yet, up to the 8th March, and only then pulling back from the next day, continuing right to the month’s end.

2022 the SP also kept on rising from XD day until peaking higher yet, up to the 8th March, and only then pulling back from the next day, right to the month’s end.

It’s not ‘normal’ for SP’s to rise higher than the price prior to XD day as that period should reflect the divi payment being removed from the balance sheet and accounted for in the SP – until payment day is cleared.

Now, 2023 . . . from XD day etc., . . .?

- I expect the last 2 days of this month February, to continue to perform well from tomorrow Monday, and continue so, up to XD day (2nd March) and continue for several days further than that, into March.

And if similar for 2023, then perhaps a pullback after circa 8th March resulting in a buying opportunity by the end of March,
– it should not be a fear of worse to come.

So, if by the end of March, the SP is lower than the SP from the night before XD day, it could be said - isn’t that just normal? – Well yes, or at least until payment is received on April 6th, where the SP returns to free-running.

But what definitely isn’t normal (except perhaps once in a blue moon) is for the SP to rise above the SP close of the day before XD day – which happened last year, and the year before, and IMO is shaping up to do similar this year too. It’s that, that is abnormal – for the SP to rise above that for several days before commencing the full pullback expected in the XD period.

If that's normal - then it's one for the sleuths to explain why it's normal
- if it occurs for the third year running!

.

I’m betting that the dramatic Feb pullback that occurred from early Feb to mid Feb, resulting in at least 2 posters on here revealing they had sold their holdings (coincidence or panic-sells after a similar pullback in Jan?) has been shrugged off by most as meaningless randomness.

However, I believe it’s all connected and won’t come to a conclusion until after this coming XD day, peaking maybe, around 8th March.

The first spring Divi announcement, in 2021, resulted in a similar set of circumstances,
- as did the second in 2022,
- and the same appears to be lining up to conclude similarly for this year too!

I believe the tree shake was for a specific short-term reason, to not only pick up stock on the cheap, but also collect the divi, AND sell out for an even better price to boot, by fooling the market into believing the SP will now rise undisturbed (but only up until circa March 8th area before pulling the handle and divesting themselves of said stock).

2021 –
A short-lived pullback, after a strong rise which peaked (from 100 down to low 90’s) ahead of the XD day, then foot off the brake, leading higher again up to the XD date (4/3/21)

And thereafter, strangely, closing higher on XD day (after opening way up at 105 which was up on the night before, and closing down that day, to 102)
– which overall, was still marginally higher than the closing day before XD day!)

That divi payment was 3.75p

Close on XD day itself = 102.76
Close by night before XD day = 102.11

Technically there was no pullback on XD day, instead a fractional rise by the close!

The next day, the SP rose to 106.
Then a weekend got in the way,
but then on Monday 8th the SP had an even better bullish day, closing at 114 !

Monday was 8th March - and that was when things changed as the tree shakers began cashing in their spoils after that. The next day, the price descended, going on to close the month down in the low 90’s after intradaying on the last day as low as 89.

A one off? Randomness? Now look at similar the following year ’22 -

2022 –
XD date was 3/3/22 (divi 2.25p)

The SP rose strongly up to the night before XD day to close at 95
The next day the SP did not drop to accommodate the divi period.
Instead, it rose higher to close at 97

Only on the day after that, did the SP close lower at 93 but from then on, rose hugely the next day to 101, and only ceased rising after (again) 8th March where it closed higher at 102.

Thereafter it dropped all the way to end the month down to 83.

- - - - -

A summary ( short post) of the above follows next . . .

First off:
@ SheffieldOwls - Kudos to you; on calling it first, by anticipating the board’s decision to announce that the spring interim divi payment is to become a regular annual event and no longer an, as-and-when, ‘special event’ only.

I’ll submit the post, that the above puzzling header refers to, separately (tomorrow Sunday)
– And it’s the period around the spring divi payment that I wish that post to focus on next.

---------------

PS.
I will be out of circulation from midweek next week, and not back until mid-March, so might/ might not get time on Wed to squeeze in a summary for the whole of the Jan/Feb performance; otherwise, it may not appear until late into March.

1)
Top-line Revenue at the halfway point reported today as an 8% increase over the same period last year.

2)
And straight through to the bottom line - Net Profit is reported as a stonking 34% increase over last year, resulting in $32.6m.
Hold that thought for a minute - namely, at the halfway point SLP has produced, in the bag, 'banked', $32.6m!

Now to a refresher of back on Jan 6th
- when this forum’s permabear after rubbishing all posters on here, sneered and boasted that SLP was in such a bad way, that it will go on to produce net profit of "no more than $45m".

(He sold out at 84p back in the day, so it's understandable he's angry with himself when the SP went on several months later into the 140's and intra-dayed to almost 150p )

See here -
SLP’s Permabear posting on 5th January -
==========
“. . . virtually no one left who can calculate profit here just traders. Let's see next quarter's results with RH at 12k and much higher costs ......net here now is no more than $45m.”
==========

- So SLP has already bagged $32.6m in 6 months.
- Yet the permabear, who insists only he can calculate profit and not anyone else (see his post) sneeringly posted that SLP is only good for $45m (when the market guidance is for $60m for the full year (last year SLP achieved $56.2m) so market guidance is for an increase over last year!

So $32.6m is in the bag at the halfway point. The permabear asserts that H2 will now effectively, only be good for another $12.4m to reach his prediction of $45m!
- Eh?

Think of that.
$32.6m already achieved at the halfway point
- and the sneering permabear thinks SLP is in such a bad way that it’s only good for $45 because only he can calculate profit.

So do you think the permabear is right, and the next H2 for SLP can only muster less than half of what it has already knocked off in the first 6 months?

Remember he asserts no one on here can calculate profit, so it’s no shame if anyone agrees with his sneers.
But SLP to only produce LESS than 50% of what it’s already achieved in the first 6 months?

Hi Crossley,

Saw your post from Sat earlier but sat on my reply to avoid clogging up yje board. So before I forget before turning in -

I see you self-corrected (speed-reading the culprit?) so no need for me to reply.

However, will use this to highlight some interesting outcomes -

First off, the Bellway table compounds from £1k to £19,744 which is less than Strictly’s overall 17% compounding rate as a similar £1k compounded over 22 years @ 17% produces £31,629

But what I want to highlight here is including PSN in the 3 stock tables I posted way, way, below. I showed 3 stocks @ £5k each which is my likely choice and that goes from £5,000 to £474,438 @17% compounded over 22 years.

Fantastic eh?

And although that’s what’s likely to be my starting portfolio to join my other portfolios (as unlike Strictly I’m not throwing everything in the pot) I omitted PSN because I’m thinking that might be a later addition, so the results are interesting when compared instead with 4 stocks @ £5k each under the same conditions -

ie., £20,000 compounds up to £632,585 but look how the big markers close the years between each jump. (and after 2023 gets crazy) -

It takes 11 years to reach the first £100k @ (£112, 479)
But only another 4 years to increase to £200K (£210,744)
Another 2 years to get over £300K
And another 2 years to get well over £400K (£462,111)
But thereafter each year increases by £100k !!
Until 2022 @ £632,585

I extended beyond '22 to see how long before it would increase by £1m per year and . . .

(No one had heard of Warren Buffett before the 1980’s but after that period his wealth compounded out of control, increasing his wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. He didn’t buy his winners only from the 80’s - it was the compounding from his start in the 1950’s!)

Anyway, from 2022 it would only take another 3 years to reach the first £1m - in 2025.
Pretty soon it starts increasing @ £100k per year, then £200k per year until by 2030 it reaches £2m!

How long at this rate (Strictly’s current rate of 17% a year) before it goes all Warren Buffett and starts increasing at the rate of £1m per year!
By 2036 it reaches £5m (£5,697,981)!

And from there on increases by a cool £1m a year until -

- until 2040 where it reaches a colossal £10m ( £10,677,374 )

£10m?

And all from a £20k start at Strictly’s 22 year batting average of 17% compounding rate.

Beginning of 2001 to end of 2040 is 40 years, so if you started at age 20 you’d be 60 and still too young for a state pension before you could start spending it. So spend your life usefully, or 40 years on these forums until we all reach our targets?

Warren Buffet did it, and beyond infinity :) but he didn’t have to wait without wealth as the salary he could pull from his organisation must be eye-watering. So no living on beans on toast for him. (Although he does live on coca-cola for breakfast I’ve read).

.

So a 10% fall over 5 days causes some holders to post that they’ve panic-sold.
But a more impressive one-day rise of 8%+ rise to 105 was a boring, everyday event? LOL!!!

Yes, 105 was the actual close as registered on the London Stock Exchange site
- not the 104 showing on this site. (Maybe late trades missing this site’s cut-off point for reporting on the day?)

Whatever, selling days before a trading update is a recommended practice, whilst buying under the same conditions of just days before a trading update, is recommended after the release of a trading update.

However, selling after February ends, would be a smarter move - IMO.

Had a v strange analyst's (Edison; a freebie platform) update on Tuesday, in my email box dated for release on 14th Feb - Why?

Why not wait for the official in-house broker’s (Liberum) analysts' report on Tuesday?

The opening analysis kicked off with a negative which coming after two trading days of renewed bearishness seemed too coincidental, but by the end of the report it summarised by announcing they were increasing their forecast SP from 173p up to 186.9p with further expectations from the Volspruit operation adding:

“may add a further 73p” (because of Rhodium) to that newly increased forecast. (I don’t receive Liberum reports but I believe they have yet to put a figure on that, but they have spoken of holding back in reserve, their forecast of adding to the regular forecast until they see results from that venture).

Was this a game of one-oneupmanship by Edison, which unbalanced the market?

Given that the 14th was a far single larger drop, than any days before that, I wonder if the opening line in their analysis was a deliberate ploy, seeing as when you read to the end they were actually INCREASING their SP forecast now, and were the first to put a figure on what they will add to that, once the Rhodium aspect of Volspruit starts delivering.

Their opening sentence seems mild now but hit hard when I received it in my email box - on the same day as their publication date - whilst the SP was in a mild temporary downtrend.

The opening line complained that “Q2 did not match the stronger Q1”. The paragraph following that, back-peddled on that, ending with them announcing the intended double increase they were issuing to the public.

All strange, and maybe coincidental.

Whatever, the well-documented annual strength of the SP by close of almost every February, as long as the in-house broker’s analyst speaks well of the future, is historically well documented.

I expect that usual late Feb sprint to continue anew next week and continue perhaps to at least the 6th/7th March, before anything remotely bearish raises its head.

Instead of my prior posts hoping for a Feb close in the 120’s - events now lower that to the high 100-teens (with maybe a chance of 120 by the 6/7th March).

But first - Tuesday!!! :)

Thanks Strictly - Your email was received - just replied to it.

Seemed to be slow/sticky in sending itself off.
Whatever, if not received, please advise so and I'll resend on an alternative email address.

Interested in what Strictly's 17% compounded gains over 22 years might look like if it were you instead?

Just let the spreadsheet run these up to reveal how much you'd make.

First is what I would have invested in the currently 3 top house building stocks I selected earlier this week, with my funds available 22 years ago. The second is with my usual current investment amount - although I'm still overly heavy in cash (fear) so have done a third for a much higher sum that many posters I've run into, claim to have invested in just one stock
- See which one would/could have been you - :) (Or maybe is you!)
--------------------------------

Table 1 (£1,000 invested in each of 3 stocks totalling £3,000 back on the last day of December 2000, right on closing time =

2000 £3,000.00
2001 £3,510.00
2002 £4,106.70
2003 £4,804.84
2004 £5,621.66
2005 £6,577.34
2006 £7,695.49
2007 £9,003.73
2008 £10,534.36
2009 £12,325.20
2010 £14,420.49
2011 £16,871.97
2012 £19,740.20
2013 £23,096.04
2014 £27,022.36
2015 £31,616.16
2016 £36,990.91
2017 £43,279.37
2018 £50,636.86
2019 £59,245.13
2020 £69,316.80
2021 £81,100.65
2022 £94,887.76 = After 22 years!

-----------------------------------

Table 2 (£5,000 invested in each of 3 stocks totalling £15,000 back on the last day of December 2000 right on closing time =

2000 £15,000.00
2001 £17,550.00
2002 £20,533.50
2003 £24,024.20
2004 £28,108.31
2005 £32,886.72
2006 £38,477.46
2007 £45,018.63
2008 £52,671.80
2009 £61,626.00
2010 £72,102.43
2011 £84,359.84
2012 £98,701.01
2013 £115,480.18
2014 £135,111.81
2015 £158,080.82
2016 £184,954.56
2017 £216,396.84
2018 £253,184.30
2019 £296,225.63
2020 £346,583.99
2021 £405,503.27
2022 £474,438.82 = After 22 years!

------------------------------

Table 3 (£33,333 invested in each of 3 stocks totalling £100,000 back on the last day of December 2000 right on closing time =

2000 £100,000.00
2001 £117,000.00
2002 £136,890.00
2003 £160,161.30
2004 £187,388.72
2005 £219,244.80
2006 £256,516.42
2007 £300,124.21
2008 £351,145.33
2009 £410,840.03
2010 £480,682.84
2011 £562,398.92
2012 £658,006.74
2013 £769,867.88
2014 £900,745.42
2015 £1,053,872.15
2016 £1,233,030.41
2017 £1,442,645.58
2018 £1,687,895.33
2019 £1,974,837.54
2020 £2,310,559.92
2021 £2,703,355.10
2022 £3,162,925.47 = After 22 years!

£200,000? Just double the total,
£300,000? Just triple the total,
- And so on :)

" And if you’re an ROCE boy, let me ask you this…."

- - - - - -

Nope, neither a ROCE nor ROE boy :)

They're just there - in my subscription package.

I use them because my elders (well, a smidgen bit elders) and betters, in the professional investing world, highly recommend and advertise that approx a thousand other metrics and analysis procedures should also be part of my investing world - and all for a small fee.

Well, the introductory offer was small but after you're hooked and can't function without them - Whamo!

As said - to date been ambivalent towards them. I don't promote them - I don't criticise them. I use them as and when needed :)

" So, if either, or indeed both, of you would like to continue any discussion there, you’d need to put up an email address here ~"

- - - - - - -

Thanks very much for that kind invite Strictly.
Was beginning to wonder how I could ask further questions without draining your patience. So yes, I'd like to proffer my contact address:

This email address is especially quiet since Covid, written in an attempt to avoid internet spider spam crawlers -

==========

dk
supplies

AT

out look

DOT

com

==========

Morning Strictly,

" ROCE has no part in it (I did have a discussion here, on RDW chat I think, some years back with a commenter, Josh95, who I was a dedicated follower of ROCE and who was pretty dismissive of my approach ~ but each to his own)."
- - - - -

No reply sought just a musing about a passing observation. I take it from your posts that overall you would describe yourself as a value investor, or a seeker of value stocks in the House Builders. Without reading that exchange you had I'm taking a guess that the other poster was more quality orientated because I read in an article that there's a long term background debate between quality and value investors that reveals quality investors are highly dismissive of value investors using ROE as an aide and describe it as next to useless in that pursuit anyway.

In following that thread it lead to Warren again and he's quoted as saying (paraphrasing now) that he sees no difference in value and quality and that one begets the other as both are joined at the hip.

Anyway was looking at differing historic data points the screener could pull up for me and although I've had access to ROE for years, it was only when I dug in to see the differing presentations it offers TTM v current v historic back history dates that I could only find ROE and ROCE are both listed under quality metrics when searching!

I LOLoud to myself as I muttered I'm pretty sure Strictly has built a fortune on the back of ROE believing it to be a top value metric.

Maybe you're aware it's generally listed as under quality metrics. I was ambivelant up until now and just looked for a high a rating score and dismissed the single digit stocks. Also I almost never did a side by side comparison but used teens and 20's for stocks that pass muster and ended the search there. So thanks for your repeated post to look deeper into ROE, it's worthile reading your reliance on ROE as it gives a general incentive to take deeper analysis of it.

Quick reply then turning in as gone midnight .....Zzzzzzz
Will study your v interesting post more thoroughly tomorrow.

“As a benchmark for this, I’ll give you my numbers. I’ve averaged 17% a year gain over 22 years, which may not sound much,”

What?!?
Victor Meldew time again - I don’t believe . . . . . .

Strictly - I’m pretty sure you’ve made an error there - can’t believe 17% average over 22 years! Just can’t.

That would put you inside the top 10% of best investors - in the world!

Warren is down to 20% average - and he’s top dog! Seriously, I find that hard to believe. Something doesn’t add up there.

(The financial media would almost certainly want to interview you, if they got wind of that!
- If you could provide supporting evidence to them, corroborating your claim).

======

Yes, House builders only. Would start off small. In the meantime, I’ve started trialing your theory with that trial portfolio with an imaginary £5k across the 4 selections. Blue all the way until tonight with only one - PSN the first to close red - others all blue :)

PS. With claims of 17% annually for 22 years - you could set up a paid-for Investment newsletter say £200 annual subscription per subscriber. You’d do well.

Thanks for the speedy reply. Will read it more carefully tomorrow.

Hope you get time to see this before the weekend.

(Enjoyed reading how you developed - love reading success stories).

Question:
Simple nearly always beats complicated, so am I over complicating this?
Have read your posts on PSN where you focused on investing procedures, and can see you keep things mostly to ROE and Price to Book. Am I incorrect here?

Did read one old entry where you thought well of ROCE but have never brought it up again; or used it again.

I have access to more profitability metrics so was thinking on tracking those most closely correlated to your methodology (But without the excessive DIY spread-sheeting as all that history is available to me at the click of a button)

They are:
ROE
ROCE
ROA
Operating Margin
Price to Book.

Q1)
Besides comparing each metric, stock against stock, what do you think of adding up all the values for each and dividing by 5 then comparing that single figure average, against each stock’s single figure as a final arbitrator?

Q2)
Is that overdoing it?
If the results were similar to your picks then the answer would be yes.

By the way, I think I would only need to go back 10 years not 30 or so etc., (For further comparisons).

Q3)
Also if I use too many metrics, am I in danger of replicating my screener's work?
As it uses all metrics under the sun to get a unified score called Stockranks - from 0 to 100.
That’s the algo that has given PSN poor scores despite the wonderful scores of in the metrics I’ve highlighted above, because it also takes into account leverage, debt, free cash-flow, etc., etc., etc.,

Q3) Or just simply stick to what you’ve highlighted that you've found works best?

Thanks (If time to reply)

“ Over historical 10 year the current Rh spot is hardly in decline when the asset comprising 50% of their basket is worth 6 x more than gold.
The normalised (six years) ROIC for this SA "miner" - wrong description really, they do not mine - is 18% which is comparable to Unilever. (Amazon is just under 10%. JLP is 8.5%. Rio Tinto (five years) is 21%) “

- - - - - -

Nice work there, Quiggers!

However I’m not reading the comment about the 200 day trend, as price being below it, but more that the Other Poster believes traders will no longer buy if the SP falls below 200 once again.

I enjoy reading his posts, but it's obvious he's a long-term perma-bear on SLP.
I think he knows price is still healthily sailing well above the 200 but he believes the SP might sink below it.

Hi Strictly,

Firstly, I’m getting the distinct impression my inadequate attempt at a self-deprecating joke has backfired and might have been construed as unwarranted rudeness - The bit where I referenced ‘junior school geometry classes’?
If so, I apologise, if it was received as some sort of attack. It’s just me ie.,

When someone asks: Are you going home for the holidays, I will reply:
Yes, I always go home for Christmas, thank you, and have a Merry Christmas yourself.

Or, are you going on vacation this summer?
No, I haven’t been on holiday since 2005.

Apartments are flats, and graphs are charts :) That’s just me.

If you are a lifelong user of the term ‘graphs’ yes, of course, carry on with what you are comfortable with.

Thank you for highlighting how charts helped your wife more visibly understand your work.

Maybe pie charts and flip charts are next for renaming? :)

- - - - - - -

“well, perhaps you might conclude that our respective MOs are too far apart..?”

- On the contrary, my methodology compliments most other investment systems.

PS.
Your guru hero (and mine) Jim Slater in the Zulu Principle in a chapter from page 87 to 98, writes about chartists and charts.

All the way through that chapter it’s nothing but charts, charts, chart talk, no mention from him whatsoever of that clumsy word - graphs. Zero! Nil!

How times change eh? :)

I still have to cough and spit a bit when I force myself to say graphs - and then I have to say sausages out loud, in case someone heard me say graphs :) :) :)

.

Denby, that post would have been best posted on April 1st.

Convinced that you were a newbie I had to click on your ID and was shocked, yes shocked to realise you had years of experience under your belt.

Which instantly reminds me of a pithy joke that I'm not going to relate here that I first read in an accountancy magazine.
-------
.
======

StrictlyB: Working my way back to you - this afternoon :)

Hi SB,

Thanks for responding and some interesting points you raise there -

“. . . you seem to be rather focused on trends and share price graph movements…? “

Was planning to reveal my key investing methodology, but it’s not about me but rather gaining further understanding of your successful 20 year employment of your methods, that I and most others, are interested in.

Your observational instincts don’t mislead you - I am an avowed and unapologetic Trend Follower - it chose me. I had no say in the matter :)

Graphs? - Noooo . . . :)
What’s graphs? Something from junior school geometry classes? :)
I’m old school so if you’d questioned charts - I would answer: Yes, I study charts every day of my waking life. Sometimes to obsessional levels that I have to force myself to break away.

You say ‘in common with the majority’ but I’ve never met another single Trend Follower on any of these forums - ever!

I don’t recommend it either as Trend Followers can never get in at the bottom nor sell out at the top - (that would require a gambling instinct :) So it’s not for everyone.

- - - - -

“double head & shoulders and all that malarkey”
- That’s chart pattern recognition not Trend Following:)

However, I do retain a passing recognition of the best of them. Research studies have shown that the 2 most consistently reliable patterns over the last 10 years are first the v bearish Head and Shoulders pattern
and secondly
the bullish Double Bottom.

Forget all the rest - those two almost always pay off. If they precede/coincide with my trends - ah so much the better.

- - - -

“As you can hopefully see, this is all very much rear view mirror stuff…. “

Hee! I’m always being accused of that!

- - - -

“ You may have come across a book by Jim Slater “The Zulu Principle”..?

Yes, got it :)
Investing books I own are probably in triple figures by now, but only 30+ are in books - the rest in ebook format.
- And that’s just the investing interests. I’m over-run with books!
I don’t smoke nor drink, so books are my guilty pleasure :)

Not many House builders listed on the UK stock market.

I stopped at 9 after arriving at PSN sitting down the bottom on Rear Gunner duties, so didn't check if there were even lower-rated builders further down in that category.

Interesting that you only monitor 7.

So that means there are 2 duds in my initial screening list, I posted yesterday. They got whittled down to the top 3 only - due to them being ranked in the 90's deciles (4 when including the poorly rated by the screener, PSN) here -

97 - BDEV Barratt Dev
97 - TW. Taylor Wimpey
91 - CRST Crest Nicholson
85 - RDW Redrow
83 - VTY Vistry
83 - CRN Cairn Homes
75 - BWY Bellway
75 - BKG Berkeley Group
74 - PSN - Persimmon

(Very keen to see how PSN performs this year - against the top 3 rated stocks).

All 4 have been nicely trending bullishly. However, PSN is, I feel, about to face turbulence as it approaches the predominant 200-day trend just above it.

Here's hoping it will break through and pass above it. Very keen on how it handles it, at this juncture after how you've rated it.

I do expect PSN to overcome that obstacle longer term; should it not manage it on this occasion.

Hi Crossley,

Hope your screen list bore fruit. My personal record of using Stockopedia is not so hot. I’ve found that no sooner have I identified top tier Stockrank 90+ candidates than months later they’re dropping like flies out of the 90’s downwards. And with it the S/price too!

It’s excellent for identifying low ranking out and out dogs though - they never let you down because they never perform - exactly as promised :)

I suppose all disgruntled investors could reply:
Huh that’s nothing - I can fill my portfolio with losing dogs all the time, with no effort at all, easily!

=========
=========
.

Hi Banburyboy,

“ The data you look is all historical”.

- Ha! :) Yes, I can agree and appreciate that view.

However, the data I have access to, tries to mitigate that by separating years and years of historical annual data from mostly metrics that are TTM based (12 Months Trailing)

- So that data is taken from the latest current quarterly results to 12 months trailing backwards so as to better gauge the changing trends into the current year as opposed to out and out, past years' historical results.

- Whilst the remaining metrics make use of the consensus market guidance forecasts yet to be achieved, and make use of those by comparing to them as “forward” metrics. So, a bit of a mix all round.