focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
fela96, most what you say does make sense and there is no harm at all in questioning the truth of statements in order to reach a coherent consensus.
that being said dismissing and trashing other perspectives in the basis of firm belief that they are nonsense in your world of understanding doesn't mean that they necessarily are.
i'm speaking of a general attitudinal slant in your interaction here that has the effect of rubbing other contributors up the wrong way.
of course we might personally feel that a particular perspective is not applicable or realistic, but we have to sometimes accept differences in opinion whilst occasionally learning from them.
for example i believe the neg media slant on smt has effected its popularity to no little extent, whilst others clearly do not. it's fair enough but sometimes accepting other points of view whilst politely providing your own and moving on is sufficient. people can take what they wish from conjecture.
maybe you should reread the barrage of stuff that was discussed by you and others as concerns your simple assertion "smt is a failing investment"?
all investments historically experience periods of downturn, but to my mind the only million dollar question is "why is smt performing poorly at the moment".
i'm sure you mean well, but the way you pushed that argument read like a belligerent child calling black white simply to win an argument.
no **** smt is currently not doing well?
is it a failing investment?
on the likelihood that as inflation cools it will experience a likely period of success, it could equally and more usefully viewed as an investment with a lot of current potential.
despite just about everyone saying just that on here the argumentative and repetitive " based upon this factor, that and the other blahblah, it is a failing investment" kept coming.
you clearly ain't seeing or accepting it, f96, but the general attitude you most definitely are conveying sure is getting on everyone's pip.
i absolutely know everyone on this forum are genuinely interested and do consider differing perspectives (i certainly do), but there is a point at which you just have to nod respectfully to your fellows and agree to disagree.
having said that lot, i do genuinely wish you a fantastic investment future.
Fela96:
"Walp, if you're trying to day trade SMT then good luck to you, but that's not its intended purpose. You're probably better off betting on currency pairs. More leverage innit."
Eh? I never implied or suggested any such thing, just as I also purchased all of my SMT holding a great many years ago.
I've noticed you create delusionary falsehoods as concerns other individuals and their investing behaviour all the time Fela96.
You also seem to love an argument and completely refuse to accept anyone else's point of view, but are clearly in love and obsessed with your own perspectives.
These are not really very pleasant characteristics on this kind of discussion.
Knowing yourself to be right within your microcosm of knowledge and everyone else to be wrong strikes me as quite a dangerous attitude on the world of investing.
You talk on here with zero humility like someone who has had a lifetime of experience in heavy investing and who's opinion is unquestionable.
I have to say it's not particularly likeable and very nearly troll like.
I bought smt at less than £3 for the bulk of it I recall, and you may have noted I tend to consider the obvious factors and surface of things rather than anything else.
I am not a technically minded investor generally.
Sometimes you can look so hard you miss what is in front of your eyes.
I just think this is something you could benefit in considering, Fella.
You have intellect clearly and you make a study of investments.. All good stuff, but it's not the be all and you are never going to be right even half of the time, I assure you.
Take that or leave it.
I can't believe you said that Fela96.
You haven't really stopped with either "technical" or "analysis" as concerns reasons beyond the obvious for the recent demise of SMT.
In terms of trends and the general direction of discussion I see benefit in the rather more obvious and simplistic "analysis" techniques just discussed as they are neither in depth or particularly theoretic.
The obvious (high inflation rates currently) seems to have been the foodstuff of pessimistic contrarian argument for you constantly.
I know you'll say I'm wrong and you never did exactly such a thing, but do you know what?
I'll be ignoring that ;).
Beachouse, I couldn't agree with your assessment more. I also am hopeful in the fact that we are seeing far less volatility and slow incremental improvement in such investments right at the moment (which I am hopeful is heralding the slow changing positivity that you speak of).
Im pleased that you recognise the impact of media negativity as goes SMT. It just cannot be understated, and I do believe the reversal of its impact given sustained SP improvement will eventually propel it's recovery beyond similar investments.
I agree with that also F96, and thinking about it in that way it almost makes a dividend look like a bit of a salesman's gimmick.
They are however a long utilised aspect of investments.
Were they to reinvest it then that would obviously save us the expense & hassle of having to do the same..
I disagree with nothing you have said, Tambo210.
Due vigilance as to any team effectively managing our money is important.
I guess it boils down to a sum of people either you investing in the first place and staying invested if the impression is that the team are missing a trick or have wrongly assessed.
I just think it is difficult for us as non field experts to derive exactly where SMT might have gone wrong in any of their choices.
I've never really thought about dividends StrictlyZinc, but have just always considered them an extra incentive to purchase shares and are a premium for shareholders based upon recent performance. It doesn't mean investments that don't offer one are a worst investment, just a chosen nuance of a particular investment product. I recall att used to offer one (as a similar IT example, but no longer do. One might assume ones that don't to give you that actual value back in the (hopeful) improvement of the SP anyway.
As you say it amounts to peanuts, but does mount into small investable amounts given time (for which I tend to wait for given deal costs).
Not sure if that's what you were looking for, but it's all I've got on the subject :)
tambo210, i agree with you entirely.. trust is not my strong point and i do read between the lines. i'm also very cynical of "research" which is usually bent towards a particular bias.
i work in healthcare, and i should know.
i'm not however an expert in mrna science, but i do think it an interesting and viable science that is likely to reveal unthought of applications.
i think if you are investing in smt you have to give the management team credit that they will be averse to professional suicide.
they will have looked at all of their punts fairly finitely, and where they are ignorant i would assume it really stupid to not employ consultants for limited fees to advise who are not.
of course if the management team have just made a spur of the moment uninformed purchase with moderna and it falls on its ****, then they fall on their **** as well as us.
I say 7 years as an assumption just down to the fact that this type of research tends to trip over breakthroughs and new avenues along its course. Holding individual shares in AZN I can vouch that impact of new discoveries doesn't half leg up the sp.
Tambo210, I'm sympathetic to aspects of your assessment on the virus vaccine side of things, as that never makes all that much money down to the ridiculous developmental expenses. Look to AZN for proof of that as the discovery of the first COVID one actually lost them money.
The thing though with mRNA science is that it purportedly goes well beyond that and those involved in it are convinced that there are multiple applications elsewhere within it, such as cancer therapies.
I also think 7 years is an assumption.
SMT must be aware of some discomfiture around the investment and the fact they are still in as big kind of lends me towards greater confidence than pessimism even despite the cost.
In short, who knows?
Hopefully SMT management and Moderna are far more optimistic than we can understand?
You've just used the same argument you wouldn't accept off everyone else on here with the technology leap argument, Fela96, which is whether SMT has "failed" or got itself int a "hole" depends exactly from where you are considering it.
You consider SMT to have failed from your perspective, I see it as having succeeded from mine. Every entity has its ups and downs and your perspective is unfairly weighted towards negativity.
Last word all yours again F69 because it's tiring and your mind is seemingly closed.
Ps.. If memory serves me correct in the early 90s I was invested in Japanese accumulator trusts and made money there because that's where the development and money went that springboarded the later world tech development.
Comparing SMT and their approach as they stood 30 years ago in a very different world to today is hardly fair, is it?
And yes... The dot com abberation was exactly that... Massive enthusiasm at the dawn of something great that was far too big for its own boots for many, many years.
That came into its own in reality many years later and contributed to the general technology ascent we have seen in the last 25 years.
Pretty much all of SMTs investments are poised to dip in to the skyward trajectory of tech that exists now but was in its infancy and pretty much celibate during the flat years of SMTs history.
SMT is an excellent investment in a world (right now) in which the technology curve is becoming more and more accentuated.
The wheels are turning at a times squared pace since those exact 90s you talk about and SMT shifted their approach to niche exactly into that lot.
It's an ancient investment trust, to be sure .. but you cannot apply a trajectory based upon an old world upon a proven positive trajectory performance provided by SMT that has understood and fits in well with that lot (as Dontshootme accurately details) over the last 25 years.
I'm actually thinking you weren't about in the 1970s or 1980s? If so, total forgiveness for missing out on the fact that those of us who were were then still basically enjoying only a slightly improved technological world from the 1940s.
So on the basis that you consider SMT and it's investment approach to still be completely unchanged in approach from the 1990s, that you must also consider the technology curve to be as flat as it was before and after the fit com bubble, and that you fail to recognise the decades in which technology shifts were slow down to the non existence of microcompressors and other exponential leaps of technology that created the likes of FB, Microsoft, Amazon etc etc blah blah blah...
How in God's entire name can you class what happened 30 years ago on this earth along the same lines of one that sees year on year exponential development down to discoveries largely finited in the late 80s and 90s??
I don't wish to be sarcastic, Fela96, but please have your opposite opinion as to why SMT has ultra performed in the last 25 years rather than since its inception throughout much of which we had little more amazing than tweaks in internal combustion engine theory (to name a generalised example).
It's a rotten argument...