Changes to KIDs Proposed by the FCA

Yet another public consultation issued by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in mid-summer is one on KIDs (Key Information Documents). This is relevant to private investors and is designated CP21/23 – see link below.

KIDs are imposed and regulated under the PRIIPs regulation as devised by the EU for packaged investment products such as funds and trusts. KIDs give basic financial information, risk indicators and likely future performance based on past performance. Those who purchase investment trusts for example will be asked to confirm they have read the KID before purchasing a holding.

But in reality KIDs are grossly misleading for many investment trusts.  This is because their estimate of future returns are based on short-term historic data. This has caused many fund managers of investment trusts to suggest that they should be ignored and investors should look at the other data that the companies publish to get a better view of likely future returns. The AIC has also criticised them and this writer certainly ignores the KIDs for the investment trusts I hold.

The FCA says “Our proposals should address the existing conflict between PRIIPs requirements which on the one hand require PRIIPs manufacturers to ensure the information in the KID is accurate, clear, fair and not misleading while at the same time prescribing the production and presentation of information on performance and risk which, in some cases, can be seriously misleading”.

The production of KIDs does require substantial effort on the part of fund managers so they add to investors’ costs while not being of substantial benefit to investors in many cases. The intention might have been good but excessive complexity has undermined their usefulness. The FCA admits that the mandated methodologies for calculating performance can produce misleading illustrations across almost all asset classes.

The proposal is to remove performance scenarios from KIDs which seems a very good idea. Alternative performance information is suggested be provided., such as narrative about the factors that might affect performance.  But they have avoided providing past performance data which is what is likely to be most important to investors.  

The PRIIPs regulations required the publication of a Summary Risk Indicator (SRI). But the methodology to be used seemed to rate some trusts as low risk when they are not – for example Venture Capital Trusts. So it is proposed to introduce new rules requiring an updating of an SRI if it is obviously too low.

The proposals from the FCA seem generally sensible although the AIC is still not happy. They say in a press release that: “….the SRI methodology does not work properly and needs a complete rethink. We were raising concerns about KIDs even before the rules were finalised and we have been calling for changes since their introduction on 1 January 2018. Investment companies are still at a disadvantage in having to produce these toxic disclosures, whilst UCITS funds have repeatedly been let off the hook. It’s high time the Treasury conducted a comprehensive review of KIDs rather than relying on a piecemeal approach to their reform”.

Respondents to the consultation can give their own views of course. There is a simple on-line response form.

Reference: CP21/23 Consultation Paper:

https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp21-23-priips-proposed-scope-rules-amendments-regulatory-technical-standards

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.

Platform Transfer Finally Completed and Pointless Trust Changes

Good News! A transfer of one of my SIPPs from one platform to another has finally been completed today (22nd June). I initiated the transfer on the 12th January this year so this has actually taken over 5 months. A totally unreasonable period of time for what should have been a simple transfer of cash and a few direct shareholdings of UK listed crest stocks. However their failure to collect the tax refunds on PID dividends on some of the holdings remains outstanding and my complaint about both parties involved in the transfer to the Financial Ombudsman is ongoing.

Two investment trusts I have holdings in are Montanaro European Smaller Companies Trust (MTE) and JPMorgan European Smaller Companies Trust (JESC). The latter company has decided to change its name to JPMorgan European Discovery Trust with a new TIDM code of JEDT. Shareholders were not given any say on the matter, although the company says it “had discussions with major shareholders and the wider investor base”. All I can say they did not ask me! If they had, I would have objected.

The company claims the former name was inappropriate as some of their holdings have large market capitalisations but the new one is totally meaningless. There are lots of other investment trusts with out of date and inappropriate names – such as Scottish Mortgage. It’s just pointless changing the name and the new one is a poor choice. Brand recognition is important in naming trusts and changing the name unnecessarily will not help. They could at least have chosen a less bland name.

The other trust (MTE) has decided to do a 10 for 1 stock split. The company gives no justification for the change although the usual excuse for such a change is to improve the marketability of the shares. But who are they fooling? A share split makes no difference to the value of shares held. The current share price is about 1700p but if Berkshire Hathaway can happily get by with a market price of $417,290 why would MTE be bothered?

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.

Scottish Mortgage Trust Report and Shell Climate Change Votes

The Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust (SMT) recently published their Annual Report and it’s well worth reading bearing in mind the exceptional performance they achieved last year. NAV total return was up 111% and that was way ahead of the global sector average. It was the best ever performance of the trust since it was founded in 1909 and it’s now one of the largest investment trusts.

How did they achieve such a remarkable result? You might think it was because of a strong focus on technology stocks – but that is only 23% of their portfolio. Perhaps you think it was because they made big bets on a few well-known names such as Tencent, Illumina, Amazon and Tesla? But that is not the case.

It is true that Amazon represented 9.3% of the portfolio at the start of the year and Tesla 8.6% but the 30 largest holdings only represented 80% of the portfolio. In other words, it was in essence a large and diversified portfolio. But a few stocks made a large contribution to overall performance with Tesla contributing 36% despite the trust selling 80% of their holding during the year so as to maintain diversification.

In his closing words, fund manager James Anderson suggests that he should have been more adventurous. He says “we have to be willing to embrace unreasonable propositions and unreasonable people in order to make extraordinary findings….”. He discounts the value of near-term price/earnings ratios – understanding how the world is changing seems to be his main focus.

Another share that many private investors hold is oil company Shell (RDSB) who recently held their Annual General Meeting. If you don’t hold it directly you might hold it indirectly as it’s usually a big holding in global generalist funds and trusts.

There were two resolutions on the agenda related to climate change one by the company asking for support for their “Energy transition strategy” and one requisition from campaign group Follow This. The latter demanded more specific targets to achieve reduction in long-term greenhouse gas emissions. The company’s resolution received 89% votes FOR, but the latter achieved 30% FOR. Even so that was higher than previous votes, or similar resolutions at other oil companies with support from proxy advisory services and big institutions.

Even the company’s resolution, supported by a 36-page document and which was only “advisory” includes reference to Scope 3 emissions (i.e. those emitted by their customers using their products). They say “That means offering them the low-carbon products and services they need such as renewable electricity, biofuels, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and nature-based offsets”.

Are these proposals likely to be effective or substantially contribute to climate change? I think not when China and other countries continue to build coal-fired power stations and many people question whether it’s possible to change the climate by restricting CO2 emissions. These resolutions look like virtue signalling by major investors and may be financially damaging to Shell. It is particularly unreasonable to expect Shell’s customers to swap to other energy sources – they may simply switch to other suppliers if they can’t buy them from Shell. As the Shell report says: “If we moved too far ahead of society, it is likely that we would be making products that our customers are unable or unwilling to buy”.

Shell says that “Eventually, low-carbon products will replace the higher carbon products that we sell today”, but their report is remarkably short on the financial impact. In fact their report reads more like a PR document than a business plan and it also makes clear that projecting 30 years ahead is downright impossible with any accuracy.

Note: I hold Scottish Mortgage but not Shell. I do not hold any oil companies partly because they are exploiting a limited resource making exploration and production costs more expensive as time passes and partly because I see a witch-hunt by the environmental lobbyists against such businesses. I also dislike companies dependent on the price of commodities and vulnerable to Government regulation which Shell certainly is on both counts.

One interesting question is who owns and runs the Follow This campaign and how is it financed? Their web site is remarkably opaque on those questions. Even if they have been remarkably effective in getting media coverage for their activities, I would want a lot more information on them before supporting the resolutions they advocate.

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.

Soporific Webinars, Property Market, Portfolio Performance, and It Helps to be Older.

I attended three on-line company meetings yesterday – AGMs and results presentations. I have to admit that I fell asleep watching one of them which shows how soporific many of these events are. It does not help when the presenters read from a script that they have rehearsed beforehand which causes them to drone on. There is much less spontaneity than in a physical meeting.

The other common failure is that they show presentation slides at the same time that are not easily readable. That would be OK if the slides just contained bullet points in large type or graphics that reinforced the points the speaker was making but they frequently contain masses of small font text that are barely readable on a small laptop screen.  If hybrid meetings are going to be the norm in future, then more attention needs to be paid to how to do them well.

One of the presentations was by Equals CEO Ian Strafford-Taylor who had gone to his office in the City on the day. Surprisingly he said he had not managed to get a seat on the tube and there were queues at sandwich shops. So it seems life might actually be returning to City offices.

Perhaps it was coincidence but the share price of Schroder REIT (SREI) rose by 2.6% on the day and has been rising steadily since it bottomed out last July. The trust holds a mixed portfolio of commercial property. This morning the trust gave an update on rent collection which said “The Company has collected 88% of rents due on the 25 March 2021 for the quarter ending June 2021, after allowing for agreed rent deferrals.  This is ahead of the equivalent date in the previous quarter.  The breakdown of collection rates between sectors is 98% for industrial, 96% for office, 83% relating to ancillary uses and 51% relating for retail and leisure.  The Company remains in active dialogue with tenants for all rents due to be paid and expects to recover a significant portion of the outstanding amount”.

Clearly the retail sector is still one in difficulties, but the discount to NAV of SREI shares as reported by the AIC is 26% so I think there is value there if one has the patience to wait some time.

I don’t know how readers portfolios are faring of late but mine seems to be zooming up in valuation – up over 60% since the low point of the start of the pandemic in March 2020 (that’s ignoring dividends received and cash movements). There is clearly a lot of enthusiasm among retail investors for stock market investment. Is the market becoming irrational and over-valued? I would not like to say. But as a dedicated trend follower I have had some difficulty in keeping up (I tend to buy more when share prices are rising and vice versa).

It was interesting to see a report from Interactive Investor (II) who published the chart below of the performance of their clients in the first quarter of the year. Clearly there is a benefit in being old when it comes to stock market investing!

They report “all age categories trailed the FTSE World Index, which was up 4.09%, while the FTSE All Share did even better after a poor 2020, up 5.19%”. They also say though that “the average interactive investor customer portfolio – in median terms – is up 32.09% over the year to end March 2021, ahead of the FTSE All Share”.

They explain these results by saying “The outperformance of the 65 plus age group could be in part due to lower cash weightings in a rising market, and their low exposure (in median average terms) to tech stocks like Apple, Tesla or Amazon, which had a shaky Q1. No tech stocks appeared in the top 10 holdings by value (in median average terms), amongst the over 65s”.

In a quarter in which the FCA warned that some younger investors are taking on board too much risk this does not seem to be an overall trend amongst Interactive Investor customers. They have a high weighting in investment trusts but less in individual technology stocks.

But as Alliance Trust (ATST) reported at their AGM yesterday, I have underperformed global stock market indices because I don’t have big holdings in the mega technology stocks such as Tesla or Apple. They are held by some investment trusts I hold but they tend to be under-weight in them like ATST. I am not unhappy to be under-weight in very large tech stocks which certainly look to be in bubble territory to me.

I hold the stocks mentioned above.

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.

Scottish Investment Trust Review

This article first appeared on the ShareSoc blog.

One of my contacts has asked me to look at the Scottish Investment Trust (SCIN). This is a self-managed global investment trust which seems to have the same problems that Alliance Trust had before they had a revolution. Namely persistent under-performance. As a result, it is trading at a discount of 10.4% to the net asset value despite doing considerable share buy-backs in the last few months, presumably to try and control the discount. But as we saw at Alliance Trust, which was also self-managed prior to the revolution, share buy-backs rarely solve the discount problem if investors have become disillusioned with the company.

The AIC reported performance figures show a share price total return of -9.2% over one year and -3.1% over 3 years. That compares with global sector returns of +52.2% and +108.4% respectively. Only over 5 and 10 years do they match the sector figures. In other words, recent performance is the issue. This performance is surprising bearing in mind that 34% of their portfolio is in North America which should have been a recipe for success last year.  

What’s their investment strategy? Their last interim report spells it out. They have a “High conviction, global contrarian investment approach”. In more detail they say: “We are contrarian investors. We believe markets are driven by cycles of emotion rather than dispassionate calculation. This creates profitable investment opportunities. We take a different view from the crowd. We seek undervalued, unfashionable companies that are ripe for improvement. We are prepared to be patient. We back our judgement and run a portfolio of our best ideas, selected on a global basis. Our portfolio is unlike any benchmark or index and we fully expect to have differentiated performance. Our approach will not always be in fashion but we believe it delivers above-average returns over the longer term, by which we mean at least five years”.

This kind of comment makes me very skeptical. This looks like a “pick the cheap dogs because the fundamentals will eventually pay off” kind of approach. But I never found that worked. The dogs tend to remain dogs. Being a contrarian in the investment world can be very dangerous.  

Terry Smith of Fundsmith has been attacking the concept of chasing “value stocks”, i.e. those that look cheap on fundamentals. I believe he is quite right. The stocks with a high return on capital, good cash generation and sales growth are the ones that are more successful even when a recession hits.

I have not looked at the SCIN investment portfolio in detail but I would certainly question some of their holdings. I would suggest investors need to tackle the board on this, and ask whether their investment managers are really making good investment decisions. Such substantial underperformance over as long as 3 years certainly raises doubts.

This is what the Chairman said in the last Annual Report: “Global markets continued this year to be dominated by a momentum style of investing which seemingly pays scant regard to valuation, and is an anathema to our value-focused style of investing. To have kept pace with global markets this year, our portfolio would have required a proportionately large exposure to a very small number of companies that we believe are greatly overvalued and a lot less exposure to the names which we consider offer the best potential for long-term gains. This influence, unfortunately, has been a hallmark of markets during the five years since we adopted our contrarian approach and has become greater in more recent years. The result is an extreme divergence between the most and least expensive parts of the market. Such extremes have, historically, proved unsustainable and we believe that a new phase for markets is overdue, one that may favour those who, like us, do not follow the crowd.

Notwithstanding our lack of exposure to what we consider irrationally priced momentum driven investments, there were two particularly advantageous decisions made during the year. The first was our Manager’s decision to take pre-emptive action to preserve capital at the onset of the Covid-19 crisis by selling out of some of the companies we believed would be most impacted. The second was a large exposure to gold miners, which participated strongly in the recovery. Unfortunately, the benefits of these decisions were masked in the second half of the year as markets rewarded stocks deemed impervious to the challenges facing the real economy, such as information technology stocks. In contrast we invested in companies we believed would be less impacted by the travails of the real economy, but were considered dull in the feverish monetary environment created by central bank support, which has fueled momentum investing.

Our contrarian approach explicitly aims to take a different view from other managers and invest without regard to index composition in order to avoid the herding around popular investments that is an inherent trait of active management. We therefore expect our portfolio, and its returns, to be unlike any index”.

It would appear that they adopted the new investment style five years ago which might be identified as when under-performance took off. If an investment strategy does not work, how long should you persist with it? Not many years in my experience. It’s too easy to hold the dogs longer than you should.

Shares magazine have this week published a list of 15 global trusts and gave their 5-year share price total return performance. SCIN came bottom with a total return of 43% whereas the best was Scottish Mortgage at 476%. What a difference! Scottish Mortgage might be exceptional because of their big bets on technology companies, including some unlisted companies but Alliance achieved 106% and Witan 79%. Monks achieved 272% which reminds me that I used to hold it years ago but sold due to consistent poor performance – they had the same investment philosophy as SCIN but they changed it in 2015 after a change in individual fund managers and after I sold the shares. They have been on a roll every since. Does that suggest that patience can eventually be rewarded? No it suggests to me that less patience would have been preferable.

One problem with self-managed funds, even if it does enable a low charging structure, is that it can be difficult to fire the fund managers. A multi-manager approach now followed by Alliance and Witan is I suggest a better option.

The directors got an average of 18% against their re-election at the last AGM so clearly there is a strong demand for some change from investors.

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.

The Advantages of Investment Trusts

The AIC has issued a video which spells out some of the advantages of investment trusts over open-ended funds. They spell out that with most investment products you don’t have a say, but with investment trusts you do because you can vote on important decisions about how your company is run and what it invests in. You can also attend the Annual General Meeting (AGM) to meet, and question, the board directors and the investment manager. Investment companies also have independent boards of directors.

You may think that all of this is theoretical and in practice shareholders have little influence. But that is not the case. When push comes to shove, shareholders can change the fund manager and even the board of directors. I have been involved in several campaigns where this actually happened – not just in smaller companies such as in VCTs but at Alliance Trust. The outcome is usually positive even if a revolution does not actually take place.

But attending AGMs is now only available as an on-line seminar using various technologies. I have attended several in the last few weeks of that nature, and they are less than perfect in some regards. Technology is not always reliable and follow up questions often impossible. But they do save a lot of time in attending a physical meeting and they are certainly better than nothing. I look forward to when AGM events can return in a “hybrid” form where you can attend in person or via a webinar.

The AIC video is available from here: https://www.theaic.co.uk/aic/news/videos/your-investment-company-having-your-say

Brexit

I see my local M.P. Sir Bob Neill, is one of the troublemakers over the Internal Market Bill. He gave a longish speech opposing it as it stands in the Commons. But I was not convinced by his arguments. Lord Lilley gave a good exposition of why the Bill was necessary on BBC Newsnight – albeit despite constant interruptions and opposing arguments being put by the interviewer (Emily Maitlis). A typical example of BBC bias of late. Bob Neill is sound in some ways but he has consistently opposed departure from the EU and Brexit legislation. To my mind it’s not a question of “breaking international law” as the unwise Brandon Lewis said in Parliament but ensuring the principles agreed by both sides in the Withdrawal Agreement are adhered to. Of late the EU seems to be threatening not to do so simply so they can get a trade agreement and fisheries agreement that matches their objectives.

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.

FCA Seminar and Property Funds Rule Change

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is consulting on a rule change for open-ended property funds. The problem of such funds holding illiquid investments in direct property are well known. If investors want to sell when property goes out of favour, the funds simply cannot sell their underlying holdings fast enough. It can take months to do so when investors in the funds expect their cash immediately. Or as the FCA puts in, there is a mismatch between the liquidity offered to investors in the funds, and the liquidity of the fund’s holdings.

This problem has resulted in the funds having to be “suspended” or “gated” to stop redemptions, and many still are after the March crash this year.

The FCA’s solution is to require investors to give notice before they can get their cash – potentially up to 180 days. But this would probably mean that investors would not be able to hold such funds in ISAs, unless their rules are changed. Needless to say, investors who currently do so are not going to be best pleased as they would have to sell them.

This is a very simplistic solution to a long-standing problem, and to my mind may not solve the problem as disposing of property can take longer than 180 days if you want to obtain a fair value for it. Permitting illiquid investments of any kind to be held in open-ended funds is simply wrong.

Such funds should be wound up, or converted to investment trusts which is surely not impossible. Meanwhile I won’t personally be responding to this consultation as I am not so daft to hold such funds, only property investment trusts.

See the FCA press release here for details: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-consults-new-rules-improve-open-ended-property-fund-structures  and for how to respond to the consultation.

Yesterday the FCA presented at a seminar hosted by ShareSoc and UKSA as a webinar. Mark Seward was the speaker from the FCA but he did not cover the above issue at all (he is responsible for “Enforcement and Market Oversight”).

He did cover the outcome of the Redcentric case where grossly misleading accounts were published. He said the investors had “purchased a lemon”. They did not fine the company, but the company is compensating the shareholders affected and 3 former executives are awaiting trial. He explained the reasons for the FCA’s actions which seemed reasonable to me (I never held the shares though – those more familiar with the case might have a different view). He also mentioned the Burford case and the legal decision re disclosure of trading data and made some uncalled for derogatory remarks about the comments made on it by some ShareSoc members.

He covered the emergency measures introduced by the FCA for the Covid-19 epidemic which he said enabled the UK markets to raise 3 times more capital than any other European market in the first half of the year. But Mark Northway raised the issue of the problems of private investors participating in these fund raisings. I would also have liked to see the issue raised of companies not providing access to AGMs nor any other means for shareholders to talk to the directors while the epidemic rages.  

Another issue discussed was the outright refusal of the FCA to provide any information on the progress of an investigation. This is exceedingly frustrating for investors as it means after a complaint is made, there is no apparent action for many months if not years. When many of the facts are reasonably well known and in the public domain already (as in the Redcentric case, or in other cases such as those of Globo or Patisserie) this can appear quite unreasonable.

Mark Seward suggested that no regulatory body (for example, the Police) discloses anything about their investigations, partly because the evidence might disappear if they did. But this is simply not true. The Police often inform victims of crimes about the progress of a case, sometimes albeit on a confidential basis. Victims and the police are also entitled to follow the “Code of Practice for Victims of Crime” published by the Government which the police have to adhere to (but not the FCA who are specifically excluded for no good reason).

The seminar was not altogether a waste of time, but could have had a much sharper agenda.

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.

Tech Stocks Bubble Bursting? And Is Stockpicking a Waste of Time?

The bubble in technology stocks seems to be bursting. There were a couple of interesting articles published in Shares Magazine and in the Financial Times this week. The first was headlined “Tech Stock Mania”. It suggested investors had been piling into technology stocks in volumes not seen since the dotcom bubble of 1993/2000 which I well remember. That was an age when the market valuations of such companies became totally detached from reality and the fundamentals on which you value companies. The mantra was that growth was everything to capture market share in the brave new computer software and internet world. Is it different now?

Technology stocks have been attractive of late because revenue growth is still there and the avoidance of personal contact has driven the need for more digitization and for new software products. Shopping has moved decisively to the internet and video tools and social media have become more widely used. Zoom’s share price has risen by 260% since the start of 2020 and electric car maker Tesla almost as much making the company the most valuable car producer in the world, even though they produce relatively few cars. There was a general rise in all the big technology shares this year until a sell-off in mid-July. It appeared that the increase in valuations was being driven by momentum as investors bought in response to share price rises, which is a great merry-go-round if you can jump on and off at the right point. Just looking at the vertiginous charts of some of these companies can spook you. It’s not that I am a great follower of charts, but when I see a rise in the share price faster than any growth in sales or profits, then this tells me that the market is getting over-excited.

I am of course a great believer in the merit of technology companies where growth can be achieved but past technology giants did not always grow for ever – IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Oracle are good examples. Management errors in not keeping up with technology and market changes are usually the cause, i.e. they collapse like empires from their own internal weaknesses.

I have to admit to recently selling a few shares in the large investment trusts that invest in technology companies – you can guess which they are. The private investors and institutions who buy the shares in such trusts may have even less real view of what is happening in the real world and hence their share price discounts have shrunk to zero or are even negative.

The mega-cap technology stocks such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook now represent more than a fifth of the US stock market according to an article in the FT. That is surely a dangerous level of concentration. Investors seem to think that such companies are not just defensive because of their near-monopoly control of certain markets, but that they still have growth opportunities. They may be right but there is a limit to how much you should pay for any business when the valuation is founded on future growth. Sometimes the growth disappears as markets become saturated and the valuation then crashes as valuations are a discounted calculation of future earnings.

The big winners from the technology boom have been stock-pickers. But Chris Dillow wrote an article for Investors Chronicle a week ago that was headlined “The Impossibility of Long-Term Stockpicking”. It argued that because few listed stocks survive for many years on the market, you are wasting your time stock-picking. Also only 1.3% of shares accounted for all the rise in global markets between 1990 and 2018 according to academic research. The three companies that accounted for 6% of it were Apple, Microsoft and Amazon which were never sure bets if you look at their history.

Mr Dillow therefore argues that as you have no hope of picking the winners you might as well buy an index tracking fund, and you would have done better to hold cash than invest in small cap stocks on AIM.

The article is well worth reading but I am not convinced. My investment portfolio has done better than the FTSE-Allshare over the last 20 years. It might apply to unsophisticated investors that an index tracker may give a good return with minimal effort but you do have to take into account the management charges. You also need to consider what index to follow – global index tracker of large companies perhaps? If so you will have significant exposure to currency risk and the fact that large companies generally underperform. You still have to make some investment decisions and they won’t be any easier than studying individual companies.

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.

Babcock Price Fall, Segro Placing, TR Property and EKF Diagnostics Virtual AGM

I said in a previous blog post “that I tend to avoid FTSE-100 companies as their share prices are driven by professional analysts’ comments, by geo-political concerns, by general economic trends and by commodity prices. You can buy a FTSE-100 company and soon find it’s going downhill because one influential analyst has decided its prospects are not as they previously thought”.

Indeed that is exactly what happened after I made a recent purchase of Babcock International (BAB). Soon after Shore Capital Markets published a note that said it would be skipping its final dividend. The share price promptly fell by 7% on that day even though they claimed to “retain a buy stance” on the shares.

The last announcement by the company covering the subject of dividends on the 6th April simply said “The Board will consider the final ordinary dividend for this financial year ahead of our full year results announcement [due on the 11th June] taking into account developments over the next two months”. Do Shore Capital have inside information or are they just guessing? Or did they consult the company first? If they were given any relevant steer on this matter, the company should have issued a statement on it. Regardless it’s somewhat annoying even if some moderation of the dividend might make some sense and everyone else is cutting them. I would not be too concerned about the loss of dividend because I never buy shares for dividends alone, but I don’t like to suffer capital losses.

Yesterday property company Segro (SGRO) announced a placing “to take advantage of additional investment opportunities”. There was no open offer but private shareholders could participate via Primary Bid if you were willing to accept the price agreed with institutional holders. The shares issued represented 7% of the existing capital and the placing price turned out to be 820p, a discount of 4.5% to the previous close. I declined to participate, mainly because I have enough of their shares already. One has to ask why they could not have done a proper rights issue as there seemed no great urgency in the matter.

Last night I watched a presentation by Marcus Phayre-Mudge, fund manager for TR Property Investment Trust (TRY), on the internet. This tended to simply confirm my view that this is a well-managed fund which is withstanding the Covid-19 epidemic well. It has avoided many of the property sectors most damaged by the virus. It has a pan-European focus when internet retailing in the rest of Europe is still well behind that in the UK. He said “retailing is in an accelerating structural shift” but he does not “believe the end of the office is nigh”. A very useful and informative presentation via PI World even if he got cut off at the end due to some unknown technical issue. You can see a recording of it here: https://www.piworld.co.uk/

This morning I attended the virtual AGM of EKF Diagnostics (EKF), a medical products manufacturer mainly for diagnostic applications. There were about 12 attendees via a Zoom conference call and it worked quite well. Attendees were asked to register and submit questions in advance, although there was time to ask impromptu questions in the meeting also which were invited at the end.

Voting was done on a poll so the results of that were displayed first. The meeting was chaired by CEO Julian Baines.

I submitted a question about their investment in Renalytix AI (RENX) and its progress, which had been recently listed. I suggested progress was slow but the response was that progress had not been slow at all. However the Covid-19 situation has delayed tests in hospitals in the USA.  Progress on approvals is significant and revenues are expected shortly.

There was a question on the ramp-up of sales in McKesson and the answer was they had slowed significantly. But the company overall was only about 10% down on core products. They had seen business coming back on line in May and June.

Another question related to the Longhorn product which was claimed to be “the world’s safest sample collection product” (very relevant to virus sample collection of course). They are selling millions of these tubes in the USA. There is only one competitor who is allegedly infringing their patents – they are speaking to them “robustly” at present.

There were several other questions and answers of no great significance, but it was certainly a useful meeting and a good example of how any small/medium company could run a virtual AGM very easily. Why do they not do so?

My thanks to EKF for running such an event, which took less than 30 minutes in duration.

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.

 

 

Scottish Mortgage Investment Policy and LSE RNS Announcements

The Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust (SMT) have issued their Annual Report and AGM Notice. Readers who hold this trust will not need reminding that it has shown a remarkable performance over the last few months. That’s when the stock market has been decimated by the Covid-19 epidemic and the share prices of many other similar trusts and of the companies they hold have fallen sharply.

Last year SMT achieved a total share price return of 12.7% to the end of March and in the current year it achieved a share price increase of 23% to the 12th May. How has it achieved this return? Primarily by holding “hot” stocks like Tesla, Amazon.com, Illumina, Tencent and Alibaba to name the top five holdings. Over a third of the current holdings are unlisted ones. They claim the flexibility to invest in such companies “has been an important driver of returns over the last decade”. I do not dispute that but they are now proposing to change the “investment policy” of the company to raise the maximum amount that can be invested in such companies from 25% to 30%, based on the proportions when invested (that is why they have managed to already exceed that figure).

Is this a good idea? Should investors support it? Bearing in mind the travails of Neil Woodford where the funds he managed had large numbers of unlisted holdings, is it wise one has to ask?

Personally, I do not think it is and will be voting against. I am not suggesting that Baillie Gifford, nor the individual fund managers they employ, will make the same mistakes as Woodford. Just that valuing unlisted companies is a different matter to that of listed companies where there is always a market price. In addition unlisted holding are very illiquid in nature. Disposing of them can be very difficult. Private equity investment trusts often trade at a considerable discount to their net asset values for those reasons, while SMT currently trades at a premium of 2%.

Retaining the existing limit would prevent more unlisted investments being made, unless some of the unlisted holdings are disposed of, but that may be no bad thing given the current market enthusiasm for them.

I also note that Prof. John Kay is retiring from the board after serving since 2008. Much as I admire the wisdom of Prof Kay, I welcome this change. I hate to see directors of trusts serving more than 9 years and ignoring the UK Corporate Governance Code, as they so often do.

LSE RNS Announcements. I use the London Stock Exchanges free service to deliver RNS announcements via email. This morning it suddenly changed to a new format without prior notice. The first such notice I received was not in the best format in several ways. Wasted space in a right-hand margin, and no way to print just the announcement text and not the excess.

The second announcement I received just led me into an incomprehensible dialogue. I have sent them a couple of complaints.

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.