Venture Capital Trusts, the Baronsmead VCT AGM and Political Turmoil

Yesterday (26/2/2020) I attended the Annual General Meeting of the Baronsmead Venture Trust (BVT) held at Saddlers Hall in the City of London. It was reasonably well attended. I will just report on the major issues:

The Net Asset Value Total Return for last year I calculate to be -2.7% which is certainly disappointing. Note that it is annoying that they do not provide this figure in the Annual Report which is a key measure of the performance of any VCT and which I track for all my VCT holdings. I tried to get in a question on this issue but the Chairman (Peter Lawrence) only allowed 15 minutes for questions which is totally inadequate so I will be writing to him on that subject.

The company does give a chart on page 3 of the Annual Report showing the NAV Total Return for the last ten years. There was also a fall in 2018 according to that chart although I am not sure it is correct as my records show a 6.9% Total Return. I will query that as well.

The main reason for the decline in the return was a disappointing result from the listed company holdings – mainly AIM shares. However it was noted that there was an upturn after the year end and it is now up 17.2%. Major AIM company losses last year were in Crawshaw and Paragon Entertainment – both written off completely now – and a bigger loss in Staffline which was one of their major holdings. However they did realise some profits on Ideagen and Bioventix which were still their largest AIM holdings even so at the year end.

There was criticism from two shareholders about the collapse in Staffline with one asking why they did not exit from Staffline and Netcall (another loser) instead of following them down, i.e. they should have invoked a “stop-loss”. The answer from Ken Wotton who manages the listed portfolio was that there were prospects of recovery and they had sold some Staffline in the past so were still making 4 times the original cost. Comment: Losing money on an AIM portfolio in 2019 is not a great result – certainly my similar portfolio was considerably up last year. They seem to be selling the winners while holding onto the losers – not a sound approach. However it would certainly have been difficult to sell their large holding in Staffline after the company reported accounting/legal problems. Selling such a stake in an AIM company when there are no buyers due to uncertainty about the financial impact is simply impossible at any reasonable price.

One shareholder did question the poor returns from AIM companies when they might have made more from private equity deals. The certainly seem to have ended up with a rag-bag of AIM holdings which could do with rationalising in my opinion. The fact that the new VCT rules will impose more investment in early stage companies may affect the portfolio balance over time anyway.

Robin Goodfellow, who is a director of another VCT, asked why they are holding 20% in cash, and paying a management fee on it. Effectively asking why shareholders should be paying a fee on cash when the manager is paid to invest the cash in businesses. The Chairman’s response was basically to say that this is the deal and he did not provide a reasoned response. This is a typical approach of the Chairman to awkward questions at this company and I voted against his reappointment for that and other reasons. The Chairman is adept at providing casual put-downs to serious questions from shareholders as I have seen often in the past.

Another reason to vote against him was the fact that he has been a director of this company and its predecessor before the merger since 1999 (i.e. twenty-one years). Other directors are also very long serving with no obvious move to replace them. This is contrary to the UK Corporate Governance Code unless explained and likewise for the AIC Corporate Governance Code which says “Where a director has served for more than nine years, the board should state its reasons for believing that the individual remains independent in the annual report”. There is no proper justification given in the Baronsmead Annual Report for this arrangement.

I have complained to the Chairman in the past about them ignoring the UK Corporate Governance Code in this regard so that’s another item to put in a letter to him.

All resolutions were passed on a show of hands.

ShareSoc VCT Meeting

In the afternoon I attended a meeting organised by ShareSoc for VCT investors – they have a special interest group on the subject. VCTs have generally provided attractive and reasonably stable returns (after tax) since they were introduced over twenty years ago and I hold a number of them. In the early days there were a number of very poorly performing and mismanaged funds and I was involved in several shareholder actions to reform them by changes of directors and/or changes of fund managers. Since them the situation has generally improved as the management companies became more experienced but there are still a few “dogs” that need action.

Current campaigns promoted by ShareSoc on the Ventus and Edge VCTs were covered with some success, although they are still “works in progress” to some extent. But they did obtain a change to a proposed performance fee at the Albion VCT.

However there are still too many VCTs where the directors are long serving and seem to have a close relationship with the manager. Baronsmead is one example. It is often questionable whether the directors are acting in the interests of shareholders or themselves. There are also problems with having fund managers on the boards of directors, with unwise performance incentive fees and several other issues. I suggested that ShareSoc should develop some guidelines on these matters and others and there are many other minor issues that crop up with VCTs.

There also needs to be an active group of people pursuing the improvements to VCTs. Cliff Weight of ShareSoc is looking for assistance on this matter and would welcome volunteers – see https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/vct-investors-group/ for more information on the ShareSoc VCT group.

Political Turmoil Ongoing

Apart from the disruption to markets caused by the Covid-19 virus which is clearly now having a significant impact on supply chains and consumption of alcohol as reported by Diageo, another issue that might create economic chaos is the decision by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to ditch the political declaration which the Government previously agreed as part of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, i.e. that part which was not legally binding.

The Government has today published a 36 page document that outlines its approach to negotiations on a future trade deal and its ongoing relationship with the EU – see https://tinyurl.com/tlhr3pk . It’s worth a read but there are clearly going to be major conflicts with the EU position on many issues and not just over fish! Needless to say perhaps, but the Brexit Party leaders are happy.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

 © Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Warren Buffett’s Shareholder Letter and Market Comments

Warren Buffett has issued his annual letter to shareholders in Berkshire Hathaway. It is usually worth reading for his market insights.  Last year was not a great one performance wise – annual percentage change in per share market value up only 11%. If you look back over the last 50 years of the company, and he publishes the whole track record, it is obvious that he has not been achieving the large outperformance against the market in recent years as he was up until the year 2000. That’s probably simply a reflection of the size of the company now and his inability to acquire controlling interests in good companies of late with the stock market being so buoyant.

The letter covers how the company uses insurance company floats to finance the business and the future as both Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger are now both very old.

Buffett has some interesting comments about how boards of directors have changed over the years. But he says: “The bedrock challenge for directors, nevertheless, remains constant: Find and retain a talented CEO – possessing integrity, for sure – who will be devoted to the company for his/her business lifetime. Often, that task is hard. When directors get it right, though, they need to do little else. But when they mess it up,……”

He also says this about remuneration committees: “Compensation committees now rely much more heavily on consultants than they used to. Consequently, compensation arrangements have become more complicated – what committee member wants to explain paying large fees year after year for a simple plan? – and the reading of proxy material has become a mind-numbing experience”.

Obviously he is referring to US companies primarily but the same applies to UK companies. He also has some negative comments about boardroom pay (which is even more gross in the USA than UK) and how the independence of non-executive directors is undermined by their pay, while he was happy to accept $100 per year for one directorship in the early 1960s. How times have changed!

You can read the full shareholder letter here: https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2019ltr.pdf

As I write this the markets are still falling sharply for the second day. Having been through several market downturns, I am not too fazed by the biggest ever one-day drop in my portfolio value. There will probably be some momentum in the downward trajectory as recent stock market investors will realise it’s not a one-way bet investing in shares. Shares likely to be affected by a worldwide pandemic are also particularly sharply down while there is general feeling that the long-running bull market must come to an end sometime.

But I am a dedicated follower of fashion as nobody knows how long the impact of negative news will last, what steps Governments might take to keep the economy afloat and stock markets bouyant, or what will be the emotional reaction of investors. So in general I will be selling shares as the market declines until the outlook appears more positive and when the bargains appear.

Having loads of cash is always a good thing to have so as to take advantage of opportunities as they arise.

Needless to say, this is not investment advice. You may choose to take a different path and you need to make up your own mind based on your investment strategy, long term objectives, what proportion of your holdings are in ISA or SIPPs and your tax position.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

 

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

 

Bernard Baruch – Speculating in the Twentieth Century

Someone on Twitter recently mentioned Barnard Baruch as a legendary investor. I have just read his autobiography which is entitled “Baruch – My Own Story” and it is indeed interesting for several reasons.

Firstly he had a long life and the book covers the period from the American civil war until the 1960s. So it covers more than one period of financial crisis such as the 1929 Wall Street crash and two World Wars. Baruch’s father was a doctor and surgeon in the Confederate Army. For those interested in American history, as I am, it’s a revealing account of why the USA became so dominant in the world financial scene.

Baruch became a stock market speculator and a millionaire by his thirties when a million dollars was worth a great deal. He later became an advisor to Presidents and was involved in US responses to both major wars. But he also was almost wiped out at times in his early career. One thing he learned to do was to always reflect on and try to learn from his mistakes so as not to repeat them – sound advice for all investors.

He is scathing about share tips. So he says about his losses in American Spirits that “Nothing but my own bad judgement was responsible. My course violated every rule of speculation. I acted on unverified information after superficial investigation and, like thousands of other before and since, got just what my conduct deserved”.

It covers an age before the second world war when stock market manipulation was very common and there is an interesting mention of “bucket shops” and how they operated to wipe out their patrons (I mentioned the resurgence of bucket shops in a previous blog post).

Baruch is particularly good on the manias that sweep stock markets. He was adept it seems at knowing when the market was too high and when it was time to get out. He has a chapter on his investment philosophy that includes this advice:

  1. Don’t speculate unless you can make it a full-time job.
  2. Beware of barbers, beauticians, waiters – or anyone – bringing gifts of “inside information” or “tips”.
  3. Before buying a security, find out everything you can about the company, its management and competitors, its earnings and possibilities for growth.
  4. Don’t try to buy at the bottom and sell at the top. This can’t be done – except by liars.
  5. Learn how to take your losses quickly and cleanly. Don’t expect to be right all the time. If you have made a mistake, cut your losses as quickly as possible.
  6. Don’t buy too many different securities. Better only a few investments which can be watched.
  7. Make a periodic reappraisal of all your investments to see whether changing developments have altered their prospects…
  8. Study your tax position to know when you can sell to greatest advantage.
  9. Always keep a good part of your capital in a cash reserve. Never invest all your funds.
  10. Don’t try to be a jack of all investments. Stick to the field you know best.

These are all wise words indeed.

In summary, the book is an interesting read as Baruch is a good communicator as well as it being a slice of America’s financial history when it was dominated by J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers and other giants of the age.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Objections to Pay at Diploma and the Cost of Zero Carbon

My previous blog post covered the subject of criticism by Slater Investments of many current pay schemes. That at Diploma (DPLM) is a typical example. But at their Annual General Meeting yesterday, which I unfortunately was unable to attend in person as a shareholder, there was a revolt.

The votes cast as disclosed in an RNS statement today were 20% against their new Remuneration Policy and 44% against their Remuneration Report. I voted against both of them of course personally. The board has acknowledged the concerns of shareholders and they will consult further with shareholders plus provide an update within six months.

What is wrong with their remuneration scheme? First pay is simply too high. Over £1 million last year for the CEO when profits were only £62 million and that does not include any LTIP benefits as he is recent joiner. But the CFO got £1.6 million in total. The CEOs pay scheme includes base salary, pension, short term bonus of up to 125% of base (90% achieved) and an LTIP that awards up to 250% of base salary. The Remuneration Report consists of 14 pages when Slater suggests a maximum of two would be sensible. I could go on at length of this subject but in essence the remuneration scheme at Diploma is simply unreasonable and too generous. It displays all the faults that Slater complained about.

I have previously criticised the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions on the grounds of cost. Well known author Bjorn Lomborg has published a good article on this subject in the New York Post. Almost no Governments making similar promises are willing to publish any real cost-benefit analysis. The only nation to have done this to date is New Zealand: the economics institute that the government asked to conduct the analysis found that going carbon neutral by 2050 will cost the country 16% of GDP. If the small nation follows through with the promise, it will cost at least US$5 trillion with negligible impact on temperatures. Just imagine what the cost will be in the UK, for a much bigger economy! See this article for more information:  https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Slater Investments Warns on Pay, and Flybe Bail-Out

Slater Investments has issued a warning to companies of their “dissatisfaction with the framework of directors’ remuneration in most public companies”. Slater Investments run a number of funds managed by Mark Slater and others with a focus on growth companies.

The letter complains about a “relentless ratcheting of terms and conditions which have meant the interests of directors and investors have grown steadily further apart”. Specifically it complains about the award of nil-cost options which they see as a one-way bet and they also don’t like the hurdles that are set which are often simply e.p.s. rather than total return.

They also don’t like the quantum of pay awards and say: “It has become customary for executive directors to receive a handsome salary, plus the same again in cash bonus and a similar amount in nil cost options – year in, year out. Is a good salary not enough to get directors out of bed in the morning and to diligently work their allotted hours? A bonus should be determined by the return received by investors”. This is a similar complaint to my own made a week ago.

They plan to vote against remuneration reports which are longer than two pages [Comment: that means most of them at present], and vote against any schemes with nil cost options and against unresponsive members of the remuneration committee. Mark Slater and his firm are to be congratulated on taking a stand on this matter. I hope other fund managers will follow his example.

To read the letter sent to companies, go here: https://tinyurl.com/wu9jh9q

The UK Government is bailing out airline Flybe. It was obviously running out of cash and was saved from administration by the Government deferring passenger duty tax payable, a possible Government loan and more cash from the owners. Is this a good thing?

Flybe operates a number of short-haul flights in the UK and the rest of Europe. Some UK airports are apparently dependent on its operations. Is it really essential to maintain these operations when roads and rail links provide alternative transport options in most cases, albeit somewhat slower perhaps? State aid to failing companies has a very poor record in the UK – the motor industry was a good example of that. One of the few good things about the EU is its tough rules on state aid. I hope that the UK will not diverge from its principles now we are departing from the EU.

Why is bailing out failing companies a bad idea?  For several reasons. First because it effectively subsidizes poor companies which then compete with profitable companies to their disadvantage. Second, it rarely works because a bad business usually remains a bad business. For example, Flybe has been perennially unprofitable and had to be rescued via a takeover in March 2019 when it was delisted. You can see the financial track record of the company on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flybe

Airlines are one of those businesses that I avoid. They suffer from the business model problem that they are always trying to maximise passenger loading as the economics of airlines means they need to fly the planes full to make money. This means they cut prices to fill volume when business is bad, but their competitors do the same (and their competitors can be other transport modes on short-haul flights such as buses or trains).

It has been suggested that the worlds’ airlines have never overall made money since the airplane was invented. I can quite believe it.

I see no good economic reason why the Government should bail out Flybe in the way proposed. If it owns some profitable routes, other airlines will take them on. There might be merit in reviewing air passenger duty in general which is a tax on travel that does not apply to other transport modes, or perhaps in providing some specific funding to unprofitable routes as suggested in the FT if there are good arguments for doing so and with onerous conditions attached. But the principle should be “no money unless the business is restructured forthwith with some certainty that it can be made profitable”.

Otherwise the danger is “moral hazard” as Lord King mentioned when refusing to bail out Northern Rock, not that I think he was particularly wise in that case. It is suggested that it just encourages the directors of companies to believe they will be rescued regardless of their incompetence. The threat of no more assistance ensures directors take more care it is argued and provides an example to others. Banks may be rescued with cash that the Government prints to shore up their balance sheet, but putting cash into airlines is typically just used to fund operating losses.

Businesses that are subject to Government regulation are always tricky to invest in. If they are not subsidising the competitors, they are restricting competition by regulation. Which one of my US contacts was explaining to me a couple of weeks ago as one reason for the demise of PanAm.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

New Year Share Tips – Are They Worth Following?

It’s that time of year when financial magazines and newsletters analyse their past share tip performance and give their New Year tips. Are the tips worth picking up or even reviewing?

One approach you might think would be effective would be to simply back those publications who had the best historic performance. One review I picked up on Twitter (I am not sure of the original source) gives the Investors Chronicle (IC) as the winner in 2019 with a 37% return with The Independent bottom of the table. However, the performance varies from year to year – for example the IC had a negative year in both 2017 and 2018, while the Guardian had negative returns in all three of the previous years. Perhaps not many investors read the Guardian but that may be to the good.

One problem of course is that the tip writers may vary even within a publication from year to year and few put their names to the articles. In essence backing the share tips based on the “form” of the publications or the writers is not going to work. Even if the writers stay the same, and their “styles” of investment such as a focus on growth or value, what works one year might not work in another.

Another failing is that some writers rely on advice from well known fund managers who tend to “talk their own book”. So the Questor column in the Daily Telegraph, written by Richard Evans, tipped Bioventix (BVXP) as “AIM stock of the year” on Friday (10/1/2020). That was after talking to Keith Ashworth-Lord of Sanford DeLand Asset Management who has a big holding in the company. The share price rose 9% on the day this tip was published which as a holder of the stock I am quite pleased with, but I would not previously have rated it as other than a “hold” personally.

Many share tips in the national media and reputable investment newsletters will rise in price on the day the tip is issued – indeed even before you have got up for breakfast. Investors then pile in further over the next few days and if you follow that herd you are going to lose money. After a few weeks, when the company’s performance does not instantly shoot up or there is little news, the speculators lose interest and the share price falls back again.

It’s worth pointing out that it does of course depend on whether you are a long-term investor or a short-term speculator. Such share price movements may be great for speculators , most of whom I suspect lose money, but for long-term holders like me share tips can be positively dangerous. My approach is therefore as follows:

I use share tips as ideas for research. Only one in ten is worth more analysis and if I consider it worthy after that I would buy a few shares and see how the company and its share price develops. Most companies fail on the “due diligence” phase. I am not a “plunger” who bets a lot on any new holding. I am looking to find companies that I can hold for the long term and in which I wish to take an opening position. Apart from anything else, moving a lot of cash out of existing holdings to invest in new ones is often a mistake, I have learned from past experience. It’s the syndrome of looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, i.e. picking new investments you don’t know much about but which someone else thinks are a great proposition, and abandoning ones that you do know.

What are the kinds of tips that I avoid?

Firstly I hate the “recovery story” kind. These are where a company with a pretty dismal historic performance has improved analyst forecasts (which is what most tipsters focus on). For example, Investors Chronicle has Burberry (BRBY) as one of their 2020 tips. The supporting article has lots of positive comments about the changes taking place in the company and its “transformation”, but a quick look at the financials gives me doubts. Revenue in the last 3 years, which is a key metric for any retailer, was static or falling and the forecasts for the next two years are only slightly higher. Earnings per share follow a similar pattern. Even under new management, is this a growth business or a just another rather mature company in a crowded sector (revenue about £3bn) flogging expensive clothes to suckers? Is there any real innovation or growth above inflation taking place is the key question?

Another example of a recovery story is Momentum Investor tipping Marks & Spencer (MKS) based on their move into on-line groceries via the joint venture with Ocado. But the wisdom of this tip was soon disproved after the company issued a trading statement on the 9th of January with dismal figures for clothing sales. The share price is down 12% since then. Too many “skinny” fit men’s trousers was one problem as the company tried to be more fashionable so that’s just another management failure partly arising from the sclerotic supply chain at the company. Tipping shares can be a quick lesson in humility of course which is one reason why this writer does not do it. Let those who get paid for their alleged wisdom continue to do so though so we can have the occasional laugh at their folly.

Window supplier Safestyle (SFE) was tipped as a recovery story by ShareWatch but is likely to still make a small loss in 2019. Are profits really going to come back in 2020 and will investors regain confidence in the business and its management? I do not know the answer to those questions so I am unlikely to invest in it.

Secondly, I ignore sudden enthusiasm for boring companies. Another of IC’s tips was Johnson Service (JSG) which provides textile rental and cleaning services – hardly a new business and one that I doubt has barriers to entry. The company is growing, but on a forward p/e of 19 and relatively high debt, I cannot get enthusiastic.

Apart from drain-pipe trousers, something else I used to favour in the 1960s that is back in fashion is ten pin bowling. Two companies that were tipped by Momentum Investor and mentioned in Investors Chronicle – Ten Entertainment (TEG) and Hollywood Bowl (BOWL) may be worth looking at. TEG (which I hold) was also tipped by ShareWatch. These companies are changing from not just being bowling alleys but indoor family entertainment centres with other games available and good food/drink offerings. Some also stay open long after the pubs have shut. You can see why they are experiencing a revival in demand with more centres opening. The key with share tips is to follow the new trends, not the old ones.

Thirdly I ignore tips that back racy stocks already on high valuations. For example Shares Magazine tipped Hotel Chocolat (HOTC). This is a chocolate retailer that seems to have a good marketing operation and decent revenue and profits growth but on a prospective p/e of 45 it seems too expensive to me. The slightest hiccup would likely cause a sharp drop in the share price so there looks to be as much downside risk as upside possibility to me.

Lastly, I ignore tips in sectors I don’t like or businesses I do not understand – the former includes oil/gas and mine exploration, airlines and banks. Shares magazine tipped Wizz Air (WIZZ) and Lloyds Banking (LLOY) for example but they are not for me. Businesses I do not understand might include some high tech companies with good stories of future potential but no current profits.

To reiterate, share tips are useful for providing ideas for research but blindly following them is not the way to achieve superior investment performance.

Preferably share tips should confirm your views on shares you already hold – such as Bioventix, Ten Entertainment and several others I hold which have been tipped in the last couple of weeks. That may be a reason to buy more, but not in any rush.

As regards other tips like the best countries, or the best sectors, or whether to invest at all based on economic forecasts or Brexit prognostications here’s a good quotation from John Redwood in the FT this week: “The safest thing to forecast at the beginning of the 2020s is more of the same”. An economist with real wisdom for a change.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Year End Review and Xmas Greetings

Xmas card

As the final blog post before Xmas, I thought it would be useful to do a quick review of the past year. I have not yet done a detailed review of my investment portfolio performance over the year as I do that after the 31st December, but on a quick look at my net worth, I think it’s been a good year. With the bounce in the stock market after the Conservative General Election victory, most investors should be well ahead this year. The FTSE All-Share is up 13% at the time of writing, with the FTSE-250 up 25%. AIM stocks had a relatively poor year, rising only 8% but ones I hold generally jumped up at the end of the year as UK small cap stocks were suddenly seen to be relatively cheap.

The focus this year though was certainly on technology stocks – internet and software companies, both small and large which continues the recent trend. Will that continue for the coming year?  I never like to predict market or economic trends, but there was an interesting article by Megan Boxall in the Investors Chronicle this week. It pointed out how the tech sector has outperformed the US market in 2019. Is this another dot.com bubble? She suggests not as companies such as Alphabet, Amazon, Netflix, Adobe, Apple and Microsoft are all highly profitable.

But she does warn that regulators are getting twitchy about the dominance of these companies. For example Google (Alphabet) is now so dominant in web advertising that the competitors are nowhere. They have become the gorilla in the marketplace as companies are bound to want to advertise with search engines that have the most users. Could some of these companies be broken up by US regulators or attacked by the EU as is already happening? Microsoft was of course the subject of an antitrust law suit alleging a monopoly and anti-competitive practices back in 2000, but escaped from any severe penalties or break-up and the case also took years to resolve so I doubt that other tech companies are likely to be badly damaged by any such law suits. But the settlement and some mis-steps by Microsoft did enable newer companies to grow into the size they now are.

Two areas that I am positive about are fintech and biotech, although the latter seems to have had rather a flat year as valuations became too optimistic and concerns grew about drug pricing regulation. Fintech, i.e. the enabling of innovative payment and banking systems, still looks a field where a lot of growth is likely and where there are a myriad of new or early-stage companies bidding to conquer the world. There is though a great danger in following such trends and accepting the hype that is given out by promoters of such companies – a lot of them will prove unsuccessful or never develop a profitable business model, and many of the shares in the good companies are wildly over-priced.

Housebuilding companies and estate agents have jumped up on hopes that the Conservative victory will lead to a recovery in confidence by house buyers. Even ULS Technology (ULS), one of my worse investments during the year and focused on property conveyancing, has risen by 50% since the low at the start of December. Does this mark a revival in the housing market and another golden era for housebuilders? I doubt it. The Government is undoubtedly keen to ensure more houses are built but house prices and the ability of buyers to afford them are driven by many other factors. With interest rates remaining at record lows, if the economy does pick up then interest rates might also rise. Readers need to be reminded that such low real interest rates are an exceptional phenomenon in historical terms. This anomaly surely cannot continue much longer.

Bearing that in mind, I won’t be investing in bonds or gilts in the near future as interest rates can surely only go one way and when rates rise, their prices fall.

Will the Conservative election victory and associated euphoria lead to a resurgence in business confidence, in more investment and hence in the growth in the UK economy? Perhaps, but there is still the potentially tricky issue of negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU over the coming year. That will likely mean the short-term euphoria will fade, as do most Santa Claus market bounces, in the New Year. But as with all market and economic forecasts, I could be wrong. So I will continue just to buy and hold well managed companies in growth sectors. That tends to mean small to mid-cap companies rather than mega-cap companies, although I do hold some investment trusts and funds that cover the latter. The managers of such funds are often closer to the market trends and the views of other investors than any private investor can hope to be.

It just remains for me to wish you a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.