Margin Calls Not Met – $Billions Lost

On the 23rd March I warned about the dangers of the rise in speculation among small retail investors. I said this: “I suggest that buying shares on margin should be accompanied by very strong health warnings to investors and tougher regulations. It was one of the reasons for the collapse of the US stock market in the 1930s. Too many folks geared up with broker loans that were unsupportable when the market headed down. Investors were unable to meet margin calls, and the lenders then went bust”.

But this is also a problem among larger investors. Today the FT reported that Credit Suisse and Nomura – two of the world’s largest banks – faced large losses after their client Archegos Capital Management, for whom they acted as prime broker, failed to meet margin calls.

Nomura said it estimated that its claim against the client might be $2 Billion or more if asset prices continued to fall. The share price of Nomura fell by 16% as these events might wipe out its second half profits. The losses at Credit Suisse might be even higher at between $3 Billion and $4 Billion it is suggested in the FT article.

Archegos, an investment company, has been dumping shares after sharp declines in ViacomCBS and Chinese technology stocks.

The problem is that whenever a few big players become over-leveraged their failure can have the effect of falling dominoes as they trigger the collapse of other players. Even if the lenders don’t fail, the sales of holdings when margin calls are not met depresses the share prices of those holdings. In summary there are too many people betting on rising markets and trading on margin. Financial market regulators seem to have taken no notice of the growing risks attendant on this structure.

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 Promotion of Speculation

I was flicking through some TV channels last night and I saw an advertisement for Interactive Brokers Inc. You know the market is getting too speculative when you see they are offering margin rates of as low as 1%, i.e. you can borrow money at that rate to purchase shares.

This is some of what they say on their web site:

“Lowest Financing Costs:

We offer the lowest margin loan interest rates of any broker, according to the StockBroker.com 2021 online broker review.

Earn Extra Income:

Earn extra income on the fully-paid shares of stock held in your account. IBKR borrows your shares to lend to traders who want to short and are willing to pay interest to borrow the shares. Each day shares are on loan you are paid interest while retaining the ability to trade your loaned stock without restrictions”.

That last statement is truly surprising. So it seems you could sell all the stock you purchased on margin even though it has been lent out.

Interactive Brokers (IBKR) is a US listed company with revenues of over $2 billion. They are authorised by the FCA. The fact that they are now actively promoting their services in the UK tells you that the mania for share trading by small investors is spreading from the USA to the UK.

I suggest that buying shares on margin should be accompanied by very strong health warnings to investors and tougher regulations. It was one of the reasons for the collapse of the US stock market in the 1930s. Too many folks geared up with broker loans that were unsupportable when the market headed down. Investors were unable to meet margin calls, and the lenders then went bust.  

Borrowing to speculate on shares is like gambling with other people’s money.

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.

The Death of the High Street, and All Physical Retail Outlets

A couple of items of news today spelled out the dire situation of retailers with physical shops, whether they are on the High Streets, in shopping malls or out of town locations.

Firstly chocolate seller Thorntons are to close all their 61 shops and rely on internet orders and partner sales alone.  Thorntons has been a feature of the retail scene for many years but it had been losing money even before the pandemic hit. I did hold the shares for a time when it was a listed company but it is now owned by Ferrero. I even sold the company some software over 20 years ago and remember visiting their factory more than once. It was indicative of changing shopping habits with supermarket sales and local convenience stores taking over from specialist shops for much of their business and with internet sales being the final nail in the coffin. Some 600 jobs will disappear as a result. The vertically integrated structure (both making and selling their products) gave them some competitive advantage but not enough.

Another indication that shoppers have changed habits, and probably permanently, was the announcement from payments company Boku (BOKU) this morning. In their results for the last year the CEO said this: “Industries dependent on face-to-face contact have been decimated. Some – hospitality, for example – will bounce back when restrictions are released, but for others, the pandemic has accelerated pre-existing trends. It turns out that many people didn’t really like driving into town to go shopping and for many types of goods the switch to online will be permanent”.

I hold some Boku shares and although revenue shows another healthy increase, it still lost money last year mainly because of a big write down of goodwill in the Identity Division. One might consider that an exceptional item, although the division is still reporting a loss.

Another interesting announcement this morning was that by Smithson Investment Trust (SSON) which I also hold. In their final results, the fund manager said this: “In the Investment Manager’s view, a high-quality business is one which can sustain a high return on operating capital employed and which generates substantial cash flow, as opposed to only creating accounting earnings. If it also reinvests some of this cash back into the business at its high returns on capital, the Investment Manager believes the cash flow will then compound over time, along with the value of the Company’s investment…….the Investment Manager will look for companies that rely on intangible assets such as one or more of the following: brand names; patents; customer relationships; distribution networks; installed bases of equipment or software which provide a captive market for services, spares and upgrades; or dominant market shares. The Investment Manager will generally seek to avoid companies that rely on tangible assets such as buildings or manufacturing plants, as it believes well-financed competitors can easily replicate and compete with such businesses. The Investment Manager believes that intangible assets are much more difficult for competitors to replicate, and companies reliant on intangible assets require more equity and are less reliant on debt as banks are less willing to lend against such assets.

The Company will only invest in companies that earn a high return on their capital on an unleveraged basis and do not require borrowed money to function. The Investment Manager will avoid sectors such as banks and real estate which require significant levels of debt in order to generate a reasonable shareholder return given their returns on unlevered equity investment are low”.

This formula of ignoring physical assets is proving very successful and demonstrates how the world is changing. I am not quite so pessimistic about real estate companies but certainly those holding retailing assets are surely to be avoided.

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.

Market Speculation and Attacks on Shorters

The UK stock market has been falling this week while rampant speculation continues in US markets. It seems there was an attack by retail investors, who follow such Reddit forums as WallStreetBets, on short sellers in GameStop. Even UK investors are getting involved. This is what one investor was reported as saying in the FT: “I saw chatter about GameStop earlier this year when the share price was still below $50. The narrative was about ‘sticking it to the man’ by targeting hedge funds which had shorted the stock, such as Melvin Capital and Citron Research. I didn’t know what shorting was at the time but thought it was pretty cool that small investors could have a large impact on big ones.”

The share price of GameStop was up 63% by 11.00 am US time yesterday. In other words, it’s a typical “short squeeze”. Their market cap is $22 billion with revenue of $5 billion but no profits. The share price might not be totally illogical. Gamestop is a video games and other products retailer and has over 5,000 retail stores, but it has been closing stores of late.

One definitely gets the feeling that there are lots of new, young, unsophisticated investors in the USA speculating in the market using zero commission trading platforms. Being in lockdown, perhaps that is one of the few ways to get some excitement in their lives.

They are also trading fractional amounts of shares rather like in the old “bucket shops” in the 1920s. The growth of spread betting and CFD trading also tells you that speculation is rampant and it’s not just in the USA. It’s also happening in the UK. There is a big encouragement to market manipulation by spreading stories about companies on bulletin boards. That’s not just for ramping up the share price of a company, but for driving it down to benefit shorters.

One name the FT article mentioned was that of Jesse Livermore, an expert in stock speculation in the 1920s. It’s worth reading his book (written under a pseudonym) with the title “Reminisces of a Stock Operator”. It will tell you how it is done. But bear in mind he went bust more than once and committed suicide after the final bust.

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.

Ideagen Results, Stock Speculation and Verici DX

Ideagen (IDEA), which is one of my long-standing holdings, announced their interim results this morning. There were no surprises in them but it included a note that David Hornsby, Executive Chairman, would be retiring this year. I think I first met David at a Mello event in 2012 and I purchased some shares soon after because I was impressed by how much he knew about selling software. That turned out to be a wise investment as he has grown the business many times subsequently. My shares were originally purchased at about 15p and are now 285p.

A recent conversation with David did give me the impression that it might be time for him to retire. I submitted a written question to the AGM in October, but it was not answered so I took it up later. The question related to the write off of past sales transactions as being uncollectable which were treated as an exceptional item in the accounts. David then calls me and tells me he did not consider the question reasonable (or “somewhat crass” as he later called it). He also suggested if I was not happy, I should sell my shares. This is not the kind of aggressive response I expect from a Chairman to questions that might have been “pointed” but not unreasonable. I also tried to attend the on-line results presentation this morning but for some technical reason it did not allow me to register. Not at all satisfactory. Anyway thanks for the ride David.

Stock Speculation

There is a very good article in the Financial Times today under the headline “Retail investors rush to find the next stock market unicorn” by James Bianco. It reported how investors have piled into technology stocks in recent months. A Goldman Sachs index of non-profitable tech stocks has risen by 400% since March.

It notes three things have dramatically changed retail investor perceptions of investment in small cap stocks: 1) the cutting of broker commissions to zero; 2) the adoption of fractional purchases; and 3) the increase in savings helped by Government assistance payments (which Biden promises to increase further). In effect money is being spent “chasing unicorns”.

If you read my recent review of the book “Boom and Bust” you will realise that these changes (a rise in liquidity from lower trading costs and money being pumped in) are common drivers of speculative bubbles. It is surely time to be wary.

Verici Dx

I am still on the look-out though for interesting small cap stocks. One company I thought I might understand is Verici Dx (VRCI). The company is focused on producing better control of immunosuppression in kidney transplant patients who often suffer from damaging graft rejection. That may not be obvious from current blood tests used to monitor transplants.  As a transplant patient of 20+ years standing I thought I might understand the business.

So I read the prospectus for their IPO on AIM last November. Market cap is now over £100 million but with no revenue or profits. The company is a spin-off from Renalytix AI (RENX) with a similar financial profile and market cap of £640 million but they do expect some sales in 2021.

Both companies have some interesting technology which might certainly be beneficial to kidney disease patients, but the technology is not just unproven but adoption by clinicians might be slow and there are potential competitors.

I consider the valuations way too high for such early-stage businesses even if the potential markets for the technology might be large. A frothy market for such companies puts me off investing until they actually show some revenue. Perhaps these are companies to keep an eye on rather than jump in now.

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.

More on Year End Review and Impact of Population Fall

After writing a review of my portfolio performance for last year (see https://roliscon.blog/2021/01/04/year-end-review-better-than-expected/ ), which I only considered as “satisfactory” being well ahead of my FTSE-AllShare benchmark, I have noticed quite a number of investors on Twitter claiming to achieve 40%, 50% or even higher returns. How did they achieve that? Or was it a case of only those who achieved good returns reporting them?

By comparison Citywire ran an article that compared the performance of professional fund managers which suggested a balanced growth portfolio might have returned 5% – see  https://citywire.co.uk/funds-insider/news/how-did-your-portfolios-performance-in-2020-compare-to-the-pros/a1447576?  

First it’s worth bearing in mind that my portfolio is very diversified across FTSE-100, FTSE-250 and smaller company (e.g. AIM) shares listed in the UK. I also hold a number of UK investment trusts which gives me exposure to overseas markets, and some Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs). Although I have some emphasis on AIM shares, they are not the very speculative ones.

It’s interesting to look at the Annual Reports of two VCTs which were recently issued – Unicorn AIM VCT (UAV) and Baronsmead Second Venture Trust (BMD) and which I hold. Unicorn reported a total return of plus 20.3% to the end of September when historically they have been somewhat pedestrian and seem to buy any AIM shares on offer with the result that they have a very large portfolio and probably track the AIM index.

The FTSE AIM 100 Index total return was 20.6% over last year, massively outperforming the FTSE 100. It is very clear that unlike in most years, when AIM VCTs tended to be outperformed by private equity VCTs, last year was very different. AIM market shares, which often have a focus on technology, clearly benefited greatly in comparison with FTSE shares which includes many retailers, property companies, banks and oil companies.

BMD own a mixed portfolio of unlisted and AIM shares and this is what the Chairperson had to say on their performance: “The recovery of the public portfolio emphasises the benefits of having a mixture of private and publicly listed companies in the portfolio. Over the long-term, the return profiles of the quoted and unquoted portfolios have proved to be complementary with both asset classes delivering robust performance”.

It is very clear that the way to achieve great portfolio performance in the last year was to run a very concentrated portfolio of a few AIM shares and ignore the FTSE-250 companies (down about 5 % over the last year at the time of writing) and the FTSE-100 companies (down about 12%). But such a portfolio would be very risky of course and require very active monitoring and trading. It might also be great in any one year but perhaps not so consistently good over several.

This is the time of year when tip sheets publish their reviews of last year’s recommendations and their tips of the new year. Techinvest have a good track record in that regard but their 2020 tips only delivered an average gain of 9.8% so I am not feeling too unhappy about my own portfolio performance. Am glad to see I already own a number of their 2021 tips.

What are my expectations for the coming year? I rather expected the stock market to fall in the new year after the “Santa Rally” and some stocks have but it still seems to be remarkably buoyant. Is this because all those wealthy octogenarians who own shares have booked their Covid-19 vaccinations and so are in a positive frame of mind? Perhaps so and it has certainly improved my morale having just got a date booked for one despite me being only 75.

The other very good news was an article in the Daily Telegraph today that reported that the UK population is “in the biggest fall since the Second World War”. The over-population of our crowded island, particularly in London and the South-East, has been one of my major concerns for some years. This has led to congested transport systems and a major shortage of homes.

The population reduction is not because of deaths from Covid-19 which have only risen slightly above the normal levels but an “unprecedented exodus of foreign-born workers” resulting in a fall of 1.3 million in 2020. The largest fall was in London where it may have been 700,000. The article also suggests there is likely to be a “baby bust” as couples delay starting a family which might push the birth rate to its lowest on record according to estimates from PWC.

Such a reduction in the population will have negative consequences for the economy in general and particularly for the finances of Transport for London which are already in a dire state after people have been avoiding public transport.

The euphoria over the fact we might survive the epidemic surely needs to be tempered by the gloomy prognostications for the UK economy.

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.

Year End Review – Better than Expected

As I have published in previous years, here is a review of my own stock market portfolio performance in the calendar year 2020. I’ll repeat what I said last year to warn readers that I write this is for the education of those new to investing because I have no doubt that some experienced investors will have done a lot better than me, while some may have done worse.

One feels wary of publishing such data because when you have a good year you appear to be a clever dick with an inflated ego, while in a bad year you look a fool. Consistency is not applauded on social media. But here’s a summary of my portfolio performance which turned out to be a lot better than expected earlier in the year.  Total return including dividends was up 10.7% which I consider a very good result bearing in mind that the FTSE All-Share was down 12.5% which I use as my benchmark (the latter figure does not include dividends though). It was helped by having significant US holdings and technology company holdings via investment trusts and funds. Dividends received were down by about 17% as many companies reduced their dividends or cut them altogether.

It was partly a good year because I had no bad failures but when you have a large number of holdings, as I do, then there are always one or two disappointments. The worst loss was on trading in the shares of 4Imprint (FOUR). This is an AIM listed seller of promotional products, mainly in the USA. In March I was reducing my stock market holdings, particularly in those companies that were being badly affected by the pandemic or seemed likely to be. The share price of FOUR was 3480p at the start of the year and I sold a large proportion of my holding at about 1390p (i.e. near its bottom). The share price has since recovered to 2565p so that’s a good example of the volatility of small cap stocks when everyone wants to get out, or how it is foolish to exit prematurely when the news appears bad. I chose not to buy back into the shares of FOUR but instead chose other companies, particularly investment trusts that had moved to high discounts. That partly compensated but not altogether.

My holdings in investment trusts focused on technology or US markets did particularly well such as Polar Capital Technology (PCT) – share price up 43% during the year, Scottish Mortgage (SMT) – share price up 107%, or Fundsmith Equity Fund – share price up 19%.

I avoided big FTSE-100 companies such as banks, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and retailers which was all to the good, although I did make money on miners BHP Group (BHP) and Rio Tinto (RIO). Only minor aberration was a punt on AstraZeneca (AZN) which I rapidly exited.

My portfolio also includes some Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs) which would have generated a less good overall return because they tend to be vehicles for turning capital into tax free dividends. As usual they mainly showed small capital losses although two VCTs focused on AIM stocks (Amati and Unicorn) did relatively well for the second year running so the overall result was a small capital profit. My own AIM portfolio holdings were a very mixed bunch with technology companies showing a good profit but others showing losses as small caps generally fell out of favour. I analyse in detail the profits and losses on all my individual holdings during the year so as to try to learn from my mistakes. But last year was dominated by a rush to safe havens and into stocks that might benefit from the epidemic so it undermined my previous choices and required some rapid portfolio re-allocations during the year.

What will happen in the coming year for stock markets? I have no idea and simply prefer to buy good companies and hold them for as long as it makes sense to do so. But certainly the discounts, or premiums, on investment trusts in popular sectors seem to suggest some optimism for the future when surely western economies are going to be severely damaged. Meanwhile Governments are borrowing in a very big way to keep their economies afloat (or printing money to do so) while taxes are surely to rise to cover the cost of the pandemic. The stock market has become detached apparently from the real-world economy which cannot bode well for the future. But that’s not necessarily a basis for making decisions about stock market investment where investors have longer time horizons and still expect the epidemic to be under control this year.

But some things may permanently change as we have become used to doing more on-line shopping, working from home, travelling less and getting our education on-line. Those are the trends that one should follow I suggest. Plus of course the movement to improve the environment and halt global warming which is requiring substantial changes to the UK and other economies. But one has to be very careful about enthusiasm for “hot” market sectors – they often turn out to be flashes in the pan.

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.

Stock Market Rally and Improving Market Regulation

The free trade deal with the EU has finally been settled. It just needs passing in the UK Parliament and ratification by the EU which is expected to occur without difficulty. Boris Johnson has good reason to celebrate because he has achieved almost all his objectives and got a deal that many thought would be impossible. From the 1st January, when the EU exit “transition period” ends, we will no longer be subject to EU laws.

This is a very satisfactory outcome so far as I am concerned as we will escape the horrible bureaucracy of the EU and once again be a truly independent nation. EU laws will not automatically be translated into UK law. We will maintain alignment on some matters such as labour rights, but we will have the ability to diverge to some extent. And there is an agreement on a new framework for the joint management of fish stocks which was being argued about until the last minute apparently.

For the UK, it gives us potential opportunities such as trade deals with other countries that we could not do as part of the EU. This is truly a historic moment in history and should reinvigorate UK politics. 

All we need now is to get the Covid-19 pandemic under control. To quote Judy Garland from the film “Meet Me in St. Louis” which I watched yet again over Xmas: “Have yourself a merry little Christmas, next year all our troubles will be out of sight…”. Let us hope so.

The AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved by the UK regulator so a massive expansion of vaccinations is now expected to commence. It is hoped this will control the epidemic by the spring. The stock market continues to rise based on the positive Brexit free trade deal, the vaccine news and a massive stimulus to the US economy by the Government sending cheques to everyone. My portfolio is now ahead of where it was at the start of the year which is somewhat surprising after such a turbulent year – more analysis may follow when I have done my full end of year analysis which takes me some time. Some shares were so buoyant of late, particularly investment trusts where discounts have narrowed, that I sold a few shares this morning. (P.S. – only from ISAs where no tax on the gains will be payable. Trading investment trust shares on short term horizons is rarely a good idea).

On the issue of stock market regulation, there was an article in this week’s Investors Chronicle by James Deal, the COO or Primary Bid. That company aims to enable private shareholders to take part in share placings from which they are normally excluded. As such placings are often at substantial discounts to the market share price, private investors miss out. They also get diluted.

The article mentions the £8 million cap on “undocumented” deals (i.e. ones without a prospectus) imposed by the EU’s Prospectus rules. The writer says “Brexit affords policy makers an opportunity to revisit this cap”. That’s one of many EU Directives that have been translated into UK law in the last few years. The Shareholder Rights Directive is another one that has been poorly thought through in terms of applicability to UK investors.

EU Directives are frequently excessively complicated as a result of trying to meet the needs of 27 EU countries all with different financial traditions. Let us hope that Brexit enables the UK to look again at many aspects of stock market regulation and the rights of individual shareholders.

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.

Boom and Bust Book Review

Avoiding buying into the peak of booms and selling at the bottom of a bust is one of key skills of any investor. But what causes them? The recently published book entitled “Boom and Bust” by academics William Quinn and John D. Turner attempts to answer that question by a close analysis of historical market manias.

I found it a rather slow read to begin with but it proved to be a very thorough and interesting review of the subject. It covers bubbles through the ages such as the Mississippi and South Sea schemes back in the seventeen hundreds, through the railway and cycle manias plus Australian land boom of Victorian times to those in more living memory. That includes the Wall Street boom and 1929 crash, the Dot.com bubble of the 1990s and the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007/8.

The latter resulted in a world-wide financial crisis with particularly damaging effects in the USA and UK. Banks had to be bailed out and bank shareholders lost their lifetime savings. But the dot.com bubble had relatively minor impacts on the general economy.

I managed to sell a business and retire as a result of the dot.com bubble at the age of 50 because it was obvious that IT companies in general had become very highly valued. Software and internet businesses with no profits, even no sales, had valuations put on them that bore no relation to conventional valuations of businesses and forecasts of future profits were generally pie in the sky. One of the things the authors point out is that insiders generally benefit from booms while inexperienced retail investors and unwise speculators with little knowledge of an industry are often the losers.

How are bubbles caused? The authors identify three big factors which they call the “bubble triangle” – speculation, money/credit and marketability. The latter is very important. For example, houses owned by occupiers tend to be part of markets that are sluggish and not prone to volatility as buying and selling houses is a slow process. But when sub-prime mortgages were created a whole new market was brought into being where mortgages could be easily traded. At the same time, the finance for mortgages was made easier to obtain.

The latter was by driven by political decisions to encourage home ownership by easier credit and by the relaxation of regulations. Indeed it is obvious from reading the book that politicians are one of the major sources of booms. Governments can easily create booms, but they then have difficulty in controlling the excesses and managing the subsequent busts.

The Dot.com boom was partly driven by technological innovation that attracted the imagination of the public and investors. It might have contributed positively to the development of new technologies, new services and hence to the economy, but most companies launched in that era subsequently failed or proved to be poor investments in terms of return on capital invested. Amazon is one of the few success stories. As the book points out, market bubbles tend to disprove the theory that markets are efficient. It is clear that sometimes they become irrational.

There are particularly good chapters in the book on the Japanese land bubble in the 1980s and the development of China’s stock markets which may not be familiar to many readers.

The authors tackle the issue of whether bubbles can be predicted and to some extent they can. But a good understanding of all the factors that can contribute is essential for doing so. Media comments can contribute to the formation of bubbles by promoting companies or technologies but can also suppress bubbles if they make informed comments. But this is what the authors say on the Bitcoin bubble and the impact of social media and blogs: “The average investor was much more likely to encounter cranks, uninformed journalists repeating the misinformation of cranks, bitcoin holders trying to attract new investors to increase its price and advertisements for bitcoin trading platforms”. They also say: “Increasingly the nature of the news media is shifting in a direction that makes it very difficult for informed voices to be heard above the noise”.

Incidentally it’s worth reading an article by Phil Oakley in the latest issue of Investors Chronicle entitled “Tech companies still look good”. He tackles the issue of whether we are in another Dot.com era where technology companies are becoming over-valued. His conclusions are mixed. Some big established companies such as the FANGs have growing sales and profits and their share prices are not necessarily excessive. But some recent IPOs such as Airbnb look questionable. Tesla’s share price has rocketed up this year but one surely needs to ask an experienced motor industry professional whether the valuation makes sense or not.

The authors suggest that buying technology shares can be like a casino. Most of the bets will be losing ones but you may hit a jackpot. I would suggest you need to pay close attention to the business and its fundamentals when purchasing shares in such companies.

In conclusion the book “Boom and Bust” is well worth reading by investors, and essential reading for central bankers and politicians!

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.

Companies House Changes – 3 Consultations, and Banning Short Selling

The Government has issued three public consultations covering these subjects:

  1. Improving the quality and value of financial information on the UK companies register.
  2. Enhancing the powers of the registrar.
  3. Implementing the ban on corporate directors.

These follow on from a previous consultation entitled “Corporate Transparency and Register Reform” which contained proposals to reduce fraud and improve transparency, and which I reported on here: https://roliscon.blog/2019/05/11/changes-proposed-at-companies-house/ and you can see my response to that consultation here: https://www.roliscon.com/Corporate-Transparency-and-Register-Reform.pdf

The latest consultations can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-consultations-to-crack-down-on-company-fraud-and-improve-corporate-transparency

These proposed changes will certainly improve the quality of information on the Companies House Register and in general should be welcomed, but they will impose more obligations on smaller companies. The consultations may be of particular interest to company directors and those who file information with Companies House such as accountants and company secretaries. But they ask a lot of questions, so perhaps best to review and respond to these consultations over Xmas. There are easy on-line questionnaires to which you can respond.  

Banning Short Selling

There was an interesting article in the Financial Times on short selling yesterday. It reported that South Korea is to attack those who bet against companies by short selling and is threatening jail and hefty fines. They are particularly concerned about “naked” short selling where stock is sold when not owned (e.g. rather than by borrowing it first), but they have also extended a ban on all short selling. Similar bans are in place in Malaysia and Indonesia.

The intention appears to be to halt speculative trading. Is it wise to do so? My view is that short selling as such can assist markets to identify a realistic price on stocks, but the problem is that it can also be associated with abusive practices where those doing so do not just keep their opinions to themselves but broadcast negative comments on a stock. Those comments can be sometimes fair and accurate but at other times they are not. It is very difficult for companies to respond to such comments and get them corrected or removed.

Of course one can argue that this sometimes happens in reverse, i.e. stocks are promoted by puffs or ramping to drive the price higher. Company directors themselves can be the source of such activity. The real issue is about media regulation where in the modern world both positive and negative commentary can be widely promoted on the internet without any regulation whatsoever.

That is the problem that needs tackling in essence, and banning short selling is at best a temporary measure that does not attack the underlying issue and in particular the excessive speculation that can take place in stock markets.  

Naked short selling might reasonably be banned though on the principle that nobody should be trading shares in which they do not have a financial interest. At least if they have a long holding, they may take the interest of the company into account. But if they have a short holding, their interest may be solely in damaging the company.

It is a long-standing principle of insurance that you cannot insure something in which you do not have an interest – for example someone else’s life unless you might suffer financial loss as a result of their death. Why? Because it is widely acknowledged it could lead to abuse, or in the case of life insurance that death might be hastened! You have to have an insurable interest to obtain insurance. That I suggest is a good principle to follow on share trading.

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.