Member Info for Walp

Well, all of those companies move forward and use tech in order to do so. They respond to the current if advancement. Tech is an integral part of any business.

Always has been and always will be.

No one wants to stay still and any successful business utilises technological advances.

It underpins everything.

Noftheriver. Clever enough, by a long chalk. You appear enviably well place to me.

Well done...

Dontshootme, I think exactly that. Most investors want gratification and they want it now. They seem almost to have made the downside in concerns such as SMT a self fulfilling prophecy.

Things are tight at the mo for all, and whilst those able to may well hold the average punter might be thinking why the hell would I tag onto that sinking ship?

Times will change, but a great deal of investment money is made up of small tone reactionary "flutterers".

You can open a HL app account for nowt and buy what the hell you want for £20 these days.

It amounts to quite a lot of sentiment.

People want money and they want it now (especially now things are so tight).

Its not all of it but it is an element. Vive the long haul SMT argument ...

Haha.. You jammy bugger Nthoftheriver... Only joking. In retrospect I should have seen the extent of the inflationary crush coming and flogged too, but then so many losses in the past from reactionary selling have conditioned me to buy on balance decisions and then stick by it.. Come what may..

I've still done alright by it :)

Swings and roundabouts for me having invested for so many years, but wish I'd flogged Nov 21!

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Advancement of ideas, technology, systems and strategies generally will always be sought after and pursued by man above everything else. Mankind wants to improve his lot individually, and individuals know that the one way to make a lot of money is to is to find something that improves people's lives generally.

SMT is not dealing in a great many concerns likely to fail under normal circumstances..

Yes there are risks, but then there always have and will be.

This is exactly why SMT suggest a longer term outlook. It isnt just a gimmick, but a conductive factor to the elements the fund invests in.

DorsetLSE. I have to agree that the NAV doesn't seem to have moved much in quite a while. I'm also not convinced by the lack of director purchases (in the same way that I suspect a lack of selling amongst insider shareholders also).

Now doesn't seem a particularly sensible time to sell SMT anyway (unless you are in the position of needing the money right at the moment).

Given the lack of appetite for tech right now and the still mixed portents for world inflationary recovery I'm also not sure I'd expect SMTs directors to be buying up right now, despite the much discussed discount extent.

I put my hands up to the erroneous statement that "we have seen the bottom" with SMT. Although I won't be so rash to repeat that prophecy what I would like to say is that I believe passionately that a day will come within the next few years that SMT becomes worth quite a reasonable amount more than it is worth now.

Also any issued statement might seem a bit foolhardy given the likelihood that future performance hinges so much on so many variables.. World economy, world events and continuing conflicts, not to mention the difficulty in judging likely time frames.

Unhappily, SMT lack a crystal ball as much as we all do.

If you are looking for investment Dontshootme, I wonder if you have looked Allianz Technology Trust or Polar Cap Technology? Both more purely tech based than SMT, have suffered less in the unpopularity stakes than SMT and have recently been less volatile also. Their current NAV discounts are around half that of SMT (don't have the same unlisted approach) and they are both closed ended ITs.
Had I the cash I'd be buying those way above SMT right now (but hasten to add I am happy to hold my SMT stake all the same, as I have though good times and bad over the last 20 odd years).

As for USA, Id be interested in other perspectives on here. Seems they have an equally massive discount to NAV as SMT but have a different team (albeit both being Baillee Gifford concerns).
Is this down also to fear re unlisted holdings? Interesting...
If so could we be talking of an umbrella approach by BG rather than singling out the SMT team?

Dontshootme, I ditched my holdings of PHI around 4 years ago down to China's rather erratic relationship with the West after nearly doubling my money in just one very short year.
If you look at their simple graph performance over the last year, you will see quite a lot of volatility (and recent heavy loss) down to China's general behaviour on the world stage.
I personal view Chinas seizure of Taiwan a future certainty rather than simply a possibility, although even the simple possibility of this happening still puts me off buying into it.
Sure, it isn't all Chinese holdings but SMT themselves reducing their stakes as things have gotten hotter in there (I think) tells you all you need to know.
Having said that lot, you could buy in now and do very well, but I certainly don't like the look of the slide of the last 3 months in the graph which obviously relates to fears that Xi Jinping might be about to do a Putin on Taiwan.
It might seem a silly thing to do given the economic cost the West would then heap on China, but then we are dealing with an entirely different culture with an oft puzzling set of priorities.
I've enough volatility in my current holdings (given simply the constant Chino-West trade bickering), so intend to keep clear of PHI for the immediate future, having said that fair winds would probably make it a no brainer.

Ps The unlisted of course are the wild card everyone is discussing, but I am personally sympathetic to the SMT team argument that they are sizeable concerns and have the infrastructure and organisation to survive.
Were they even not and in the worst case scenario, could I suffer the total loss of even half of these concerns in an apocalyptic scenario? Given that relates to 15% and given the upside that looks likely (who the hell knows when...), you bet I can.

Thankyou dontshootme. Some positivity.
Much discussion recently as goes the selection and retention of SMTs concerns by SMT direction, yet all of which relates poorly to the fact that there are some dynamite companies in there and little reason to forecast doom for the portfolio assembled.
All (even the unlisted) are extremely large and sophisticated concerns who have everything it takes to survive right now.
Once success reigns plus inflation cools I feel sure SMT will regain the market confidence it appears to have lost.

In4themoney, I certainly don't blame anyone (and have sympathy for) for being bitter had they bought at anytime prior to the current slump, but it does seem logical to me that all investments have ups and downs.
I always loosely refer to SMT as tech, (which LLL rightly points out doesn't match the descripto perfectly).
The point is that they have slumped for much the same reasons that other closed ended ITs have done so during the same recent time frame (admittedly more so).
The question therefore is whether they have slumped more than others (above the obvious inflationary issues) down to inaction and mismanagement.
Although your suggestion that they buy into AI is a good one, I would certainly feel very uneasy about them selling the unlisted concerns (probably all now at their bottom valuations) to buy into an area which is likely being much speculated upon as we speak.
I'd also argue that a great many concerns held already have within them a burgeoning interest in the expanding world of AI (just Amazon is an example, as I'll warrant are the glut of holdings). Of course these companies will modify themselves to be on the cutting edge of AI both in development and acquisition).
The argument that they should be doing anything at all right now actually frightens me in many ways.
I for one would be more likely to consider ditching if they came out with a plan as you speak as in my mind it would suggest the following:
1) SMT don't have the courage of their convictions.
2) SMT make acquisition errors.
3) SMT have no longer have foresight.
4) SMT are being frivolous and cannot be trusted for new investment.
All of the above I don't happen to believe despite trying very hard to test the arguments, but all due respect to such arguments.

Apologies, In4the. Reading your post further down, I see you have remarked on a credible plan.
SMT have actually diversified themselves already and are a trust who tend to stick with their agreed strategies, and what they are doing by sitting on that strikes me as reasonable and conducive to their normal behaviour patterns.
I sympathize with all those who have lost big since their initial investments in this trust, although it has to be noted that all tech has lost over the same period, but none have been reviled by the media more than SMT.
There are those on here who feel it amounts to little in terms of investor assessment, but I believe it accounts for quite a lot of SMTs current performance.

The SMT team run to the same rules as we all do. Sell in haste to diversify beyond their clearly continuing convictions then buying other stuff on a whim really is proven time and time again the economics of the foolish. They are a tech fund and therefore beyond completely rebranding themselves, were it even possible, who exactly would sell promising tech at the likely bottom of the inflationary period to actually buy similar tech?
All that says to me is that they have likely already made reasonable decisions.

Fair enough in4themoney, but that doesn't amount in my mind to a credible analysis. What else are they expected to do other than sit on their hands? How would you managed it better? By selling various investments beyond the necessary diversifications they have already put in place? I for one am glad they have not behaved in an erratic manner.
How much of the problem is down to high inflation and what is the degree and nature of the SMT teams mismanagement, do you feel? Had you bought any tech just prior to Nov 21 you would be sitting on a loss right now, and although I agree SMT have sunk more than most I do believe a factor in this has simply been the paranoia caused by Anderson leaving (construed as a legend who was the only architect of the trusts success, no other could match him according to the media bombardment throughout the recent decline of tech), plus all the steady stream of negativity since then aimed at the biggest and best known example of these kind of tech trust investments.
Such stuff has a big subliminal effect and failure does tend to compound down to the herd instinct...
Most investors don't think that much about the technicals, and if a trust is failing more than another the herd instinct always wins over. That, ( believe, amounts to at least a very large part of the lower performance.
In short, underline the mismanagement you are seeing and elucidating on that and I'm all ears.
I've already heard the unlisted funds argument and Im personally feeling ok about that for a variety of clear & logical factors.

Also... Those who actually can decipher what a "good job" amounts to until after the pudding is fully cooked, please may I borrow your crystal ball?

Bile not bike (re Bilde)... Apologies..
"Boardroom spats" (media described) do not convince me as to failure. Professional divide kept professional might be more to my liking.

"Jokers", inforthemoney?? Can you just expand on what they've done wrong? Sure Anderson's gone, but what have the current managerial team done that's so awful to make you feel this way.?
Ive heard the unlisted funds argument and I don't see it as a big no no, but each to their own. I don't think Bilde was correct in his assessment (or even his bike), who knows?
What the trust is suffering right now is unpopularity.
That's pretty much it, really...
I take it you've sold out now as leaving your money in the hands of "jokers" doesn't seem sensible.
Fair enough, but I'm sticking until someone gives something really compelling that says SMT is stuffed... I still look at the spread of companies and believe in an upside, regardless of the unlisted stuff (which really isn't just a small time gamble).
Its getting a bit heated on here, tbh. That's a pity... :(

That was loosely how I viewed things, so thanks for the clarification LLL :)

Sorry.. I meant view the real likely discount for all the non unlisted at 12%, as this seems to reflect the average of other closed ended investment trusts (not having unlisted investments) discounts to nav... Hope that makes sense.

Interesting... But I'd add in at least 12% estimate discount as this reflects the mean discount of investment trusts that don't deal in unlisted holdings... On that basis your assessment of discount for the unlisted stick alone comes out almost half of your assessment at 36%.
Even at that it seems a bit scary, but given the entirely academic & woolly "values" of the developing entities that these companies currently are (given SMTs approach), a premium representing their futures has equally not been accounted for.
I guess this therefore puts a great onus on the current quality of SMTs operation, and does increase their risk in a inflation averse market (whilst also increasing the potential future reward).
Given everything, I personally feel ok with it all and optimistic despite admiring the nature of your mathematical argument :)