Member Info for Walp

Is it also even possible that unlisted concerns have a cumulatively negative yet benign influence on the dynamics of the Nav assessment...? Probably a naive question, but humour me?
The assessment of a credible net asset value for such non tangible rapidly developing investments has always slightly puzzled me.

Further to this I do understand the concept that the nav being twice as discounted as ATT for example (which doesn't do unlisted) might indicate on a mathematic level that the unlisted companies are held at an increasing loss, but wonder to the mechanism that can assess their actual value given they are very largely an investment in ideas and potential (the exact thing that SMT has always been rather good at).
Could the mechanism of net value assessment be conceivably skewed due to the influence of perceived risk?

Interesting and equally valid arguments, although I don't agree that the nav is a pure valuation of worth given (especially now) given that high inflationary makes future values so unquantifiable.
If it were so, why would the Nav almost daily rise or fall proportionate to the assessed price?
Can the true worth of a developing entity based upon skills, tech and often non tangible future development ideas be easily assessed in value as commodities are?
Despite also being a non technical contributor, but one who has invested in various stuff over the last 30 years I do see the risk in the various unlisted assets, but do go with SMTs argument that this doesn't carry the risks perceived (re Woodford). In short, I currently believe them to be properly equipped to operate as they are.
My (...basic, apologies) understanding is investments are worth what punters are prepared to currently pay for them, and accounting aside the obvious economic circumstances that dictate tech a current short term "loser" any further perceived risks (such as the unlisted stocks argument comparative to Woodford) seem likely to me to put SMT further down punters "to buy" list. I do accept that the perception of even higher risk as goes this particular trust re: unlisted stocks when compared to Woodford, which probably explains why a similar concern (ATT which doesn't do unlisted stuff) has a NAV discount of just 11%).
Its been my recurrent theme, but I do feel that the media generated perception (SMT having been exploded in negative media limelight) has a lot to do with everything at the moment.
Apologies if that's too basic an assessment and I'm happy to be corrected as goes the technicalities or even my (very primitive) understanding.

Momentarily....

On the basis that lower interest rates are the natural endeavour of world economies , I'm in with LLL on this one. Healthy pessimism aside (and the goal of 2% inflation inarguably going to be a tough ask for some time again) I too favour a slightly more optimistic and expedient future.
Although I'm firmly planted on the glass half full side of the fence, I could be wrong which would be far from the first time.
I felt convinced and gave my opinion that we had hit the likely bottom at around 6.70 (that being it's lowest point in the last pessimistic dip 11 months ago), but am currently eating my hat.
As ever I am neither buying or selling, yet have waved goodbye to nearly 2/3 of the value height of my holding since November 21 (despite still being heavily up inflationary change accounted for).
Doggedly holding as further losses amount to a fraction of losses since then, yet I still see an upside before too long as inevitable...
Hope I don't have to replace my second hat :)

LLL, agreed as to the bulk cause of the issue, which is of course effecting the rest of the tech market and has been much in discussion over the last 18 months of pain. My point was the sub comparitive performances to the others and applying logic to those causes. Sure Anderson left and it has suffered, but have the decisions since then been destructive? Was Bilde correct in his assessment which then double labeled the trust as an issue? Are the constant articles labelling SMT as a failure in performance self prophesising?
Knowing the pessimistic nature of investors in general (who are after all naturally strongly speculative) I do feel a deal of the exaggeratedly bad performance is down to the spoon fed impression of a "good egg gone bad".
Do the unlisted concerns (and the rest of it) censure such fear and loathing, is the question?
Much as I would normally self with a consistent loser (maybe I should have way, way in the past) I (like you) have attributed the fall generally down to inflation.
I believe you are holding but not buying at the moment also?

Yes, the decline above all others of SMT is undeniably concerning, but I think a little logic is worthy of consideration as goes all discussed concerns.
What, in essence, is happening to the trust that is vastly new, different or concerning above all other similar AICs?
We know that the financial media have absolutely (gleefully) riddled the trust with tales guaranteed to sew doubt amongst the panicked herd, adding to that wholly unhealthy speculation surrounding the departure of its old head honcho and complete conjecture as to the possible inability of the rest of the team to maintain a decent strategy.
Not many tech buyers are likely to have had all of that pass them by, and so any out there wishing to buy into tech in a well timed fashion might seem most likely to leave SMT at the bottom of their purchasing list.
Placing the weight of likely negative against the weight of likely positive (and in the absence of any real discernible issues) I am holding come what may (and given the enormity of my losses so far, as well I might)...
Its a close ended trust and the Woodford argument seems rather unlikely to me in addition..
Right or wrong, selling right now would feel 10x the pain of just holding.
Inflationary recovery is turning out to be slower than forecast and Id bet my granny (probably... If I actually had one) that these will be worth rather a bit more than they are now in 6 months...

It also creates a lot of money for the financial industry, by inter juxtaposing positivity then contrasting negativity (oft puzzling given the proximity of forecasting) as concerns various trusts and funds at any given loose market sentiment trend.
Its obviously a money making giveaway strategy capitalised upon by the respected and less respected financial media out there, but none so audaciously IMO.
Common sense goes a long way here, and often negative headlines can depress prices enough to make a great buying opportunity.
For my part, I ignore most of it.

Agreed. Closed ended gives a lot of investor protection (I only invest in closed ended AICs).
Id say it is a reasonable and unforced argument...

Both... At the moment.
Dependant on investor perspectives, the glut of which nudge towards the need for instant gratification.
As a matter of interest both ATT and PCT currently stand at a NAV of around -14.5%, SMTs being higher mainly on the basis (I personally believe) of being the focal point in recent media negativity.
I guess we shall see.

In4themoney, you are correct on those figures and I agree my comments were far too generalistic. I think a lot of the more recent losses for SMT above others can be explained by their trust popularity prior to high inflation above all others. Looking at the five year performances against the others mentioned this certainly seems a factor. They climbed higher during the bubble (I recall reviewing the 5 year performance and this much is true) and so it seems to me given the sudden big loss on popularity for all of it, had further to fall...
The loss of James Anderson, I recall precipitated a slide in the trust's popularity which I deemed a little unfair at the time, and since then there seems to have been a constant media stream barrage that has always been based upon conjecture and assumption.
Many of the holdings amongst the three trusts mentioned are in fact the same, and excepting the general distrust in China (all being exposed to that) see no strong argument in the general assessment of SMTs worth being diminished to the point it exists ridiculously below NAV.
On that basis, my loose assessment is simply that SMT are out of favour beyond the others down to a variety of factors that have no proven background.
There is nothing that quite gets the sheep herd running when everyone is crying wolf.

To my mind one man's "boardroom spat" is another man's heated discussion leading to hopefully better outcomes. No prizes for guessing how the media would choose to view it .. Sure it was heated and (sure) it has led to staff disagreeing with general policy to throw their hats in. You might even describe it as healthy and natural.
Let's all be honest with each other and ask ourselves whether this kind of thing happens to no ones interest or general detriment behind doors in boardrooms all across the country? That's why board meetings exist, to identify the correct way within an individual concern.
Why did this leak to the press in a damaging manner by a disgruntled member subsequently leaving the board? That's anyone's guess but I can certainly see a myriad of reasons, the worst of which the kind of media designed to stir up the market to generate trading costs and fees... Perhaps also to feather individual nest futures?
Whatever the reasons such tensions and brewing perspectival differences might appear fairly natural and healthy given the pressure SMT has been under over the last 16 months or so.
Had high interest not have reared its head I would have predicted a likely bubble pop, but certainly not the losses evident across ALL of these type of collective tech concerns (and I include PCT and ATT, both of which have suffered a near mirror collapse over the same period).
SMT appears firmly in the financial media eye right now, and you may well expect it to do so given its meteorological rise (now fall)... It's the perfect synopsis for collective tech and a concern of this kind most likely to be recognised by those reading the financial press.
I believe this "spat" will join all the rest of the fear speculation brigade tosh given time and be proven largely inconsequential, not that the consequences of anything at all can be fairly appraised in retrospect given all of the varying market factors and pressures.
Ever the current Ticktock/ bytedance *******s feels to me likely to blow over in time. It's more about the US flexing it's muscles with China as is often the case. Difficult to see a Ticktock ban given the economic benefit it gives and livelihoods it supports (despite me not being the greatest of fans on a quite a few ethical grounds).
I'm firmly with LLL and would implore people to never forget that the single most factor effecting things is global high interest rates.
Agreed it's not a given things will improve when high interest curtails (which we of course know it will), but it's certainly high odds.
Odds that good are rare within the investment world and so it's a no brainer in my mind (at least) to chill, hold and await the hopeful upside.

SMT's relation to the Nasdaq is always baffling. Whereas admittedly it isnt all pure tech, you might expect it to follow.
I could never have imagined a NAV so negative, but this also applies to other tech AICs such as ATT and PCT. The drops have effected all similarly, so to identify SMT as peculiarly negatively effected isn't accurate.
Everybody is out there for any profit now, and so why would new investors pitch into a line of investment that seems entrenched in choppiness?
Many of us remain invested and the patient and more long sighted amongst us wouldn't be unwise (imo) to invest right now.once inflation cures there will be a rush to get back into these kind of investments and better to be in before that inevitably happens.
That's my opinion on it all.

Dontshootme, I wontshootyou. I think on balance it's a wise decision. Clearly you have longer term vision than the bulk of the collective market participants desperately looking for short term returns.
I have a feeling those not wildly selling and buying upon the uncertainty will end up in the best place right now, and before all that long.
Disappointed in the drops again (generated by further pessimism re the fed and degraded Chino West relations down to injured pride), but am as resolute that China don't particularly wish to lose out on long term world economic opportunities and that high inflation is temporary as ever.

Volatility, volatility..
Expect volatility. Be patient.
The nav is massively disparate to the actual value and so will continue until people stop speculating to fulfil their need for immediate returns.
This is what dictates the prices now for the likes of us buying into a in investment trust l.
Of course once inflation corrects (it has to as the world economy is controlled by people who want low inflation), the volatile will curtail somewhat as people increasingly buy in.
We have seen this in calmer times.
Buy big if brave, buy in drip feed or just hold...
But don't sell.. just don't..
We have seen the bottom.

In short to my last post. For me life has always been about living. My main hobby is walking the hills and enjoying the outdoors not sat over a computer reading the financial press.
There are some fab financial brains on here, but I'm going to break convention on here by saying it's not all rocket science and sometimes sticking with basic yet sound investment ideas and belligerently sticking with them (even through calamitous periods) are enough to give you a fantastic mean return given time without having to catch knives in your sleep .
Yes, I've been lucky, plus call me lazy, but AICs suit me and SMT has done more for me than any other..
Just a perspective.

To my mind it's a swings and roundabouts of attitudes, but I'm happy with the security of dozens of tech companies selected by a team of experienced buyers.
The argument will go on as concerns "are they still up to it"? I personally believe little will change as goes SMT, and that losses will simply reflect the political and economic tides of history (as recent the recent losses reflect).
Tech will always generally make money (given the caveat of time) as it represents the outcome of the necessity for humanity to adjust and move forward. Humanity will never seek to move backward (a simplistic argument but I stand by it).
Investing the time and effort in researching, discovering & investing in an individual company just hitting the hi-ball curve of success is always going to garner my admiration.
Spread that out amongst 50 such companies in a single portfolio and having your research and facts correct, then you are essentially mimicking an aic.
It's not for me (I wouldn't sleep well, which is why 90% of my investments have always been AICs which have returned probably around 1000% in the last 30 years... which includes the losses in tech since Nov 21 ), but good luck and total respect to those who do.
SMT is for the long run (and I should know as I've held onto them for the last 25 years at least).

Exactly. And the fears that drive them are either (in reality) paper tigers or they are running too late or too early.
Despite SNT not exactly following the Nasdaq, those who do follow may have noticed a month plus long general (less volatile) shallow time vs rise in its value that hasn't been seen since November 21. Given the prospect of greener pastures for tech once inflation curbs (and that particular prospect becoming slightly palpable now, despite the future being hardly generalistically utopia), it may or may not be a sign that investment is worthy right now and an early sign that the long term investors are slowly buying back in...
I provide this simply as a possibility that I am increasingly leaning towards, although Im sure people out there will have their own opinion...
I did note the suggestion in the Investec discussion that it might be an idea to sell and buy back in increments on the basis of the price going down again, but then it didn't..
SMT is a long term investment and now (more than ever) I would suggest resisting the sheep instinct and standing firm against paper tigers...

So if I've read it right Investec says "unworthy/sell" and another broker (Numis) says (or at least the piece suggests) "worthy/hold"...
Strikes me as a great story to induce thousands of deals given the large popularity of SMT, which is a common and lucrative media based money making practice.
Fairly obvious way to produce buckets of money in commissions etc for the financial industry, I would say.
There's nothing quite as lucrative for these people than putting a tiger amongst the herd...
There's another nuance and my opinion on it, but I guess the coming year will likely tell...
So in short..
I am massively cynical and not in the slightest inclined to sell, but each to their own...

So if I've read it right Investec says "unworthy/sell" and another broker (Numis) says (or at least the piece suggests) "worthy/hold"...
Strikes me as a great story to induce thousands of deals given the large popularity of SMT, which is a common and lucrative media based money making practice.
Fairly obvious way to produce buckets of money in commissions etc for the financial industry, I would say.
There's nothing quite as lucrative for these people than putting a tiger amongst the herd...
There's another nuance and my opinion on it, but I guess the coming year will likely tell...