Santa Rally and Maven VCT Merger

After a very strong upward run in my overall portfolio valuation over the last three weeks, it’s down by 1% today. Does that mean the traditional “santa rally” is over? I do get the impression that the rally happens earlier every year. Are folks wising up to the phenomenon or perhaps they are simply getting paid their Christmas bonuses earlier?

Certainly the racy technology stocks were particularly bouyant of late, leading me to sell a few shares in some of my holdings (“top slicing” to keep them not too large a proportion of my overall portfolio). But selling one’s winners is a very dangerous game to play.

Or perhaps the market has been depressed by other bad news such as the fact that your life expectancy has just been cut by up to 3 years by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). It seems their previous estimates that 34% of newborn boys would reach 100, and 40% of newborn girls would reach that age were wildly optimistic. Or was it some other bad news that caused markets to fall? Both the S&P500 and the FTSE-100 are both down 0.8% at the time of writing so my portfolio is just mirroring national trends it seems. Perhaps the US/China trade battle is hotting up? Sometimes stock markets are just volatile for no great reason other than investors following other investors.

I received notice of a proposed merger between Maven Income & Growth VCT 4 (MAV4) and Maven Income & Growth VCT 6 (MIG6) today. I hold the former but not the latter.

I am usually in favour of VCT mergers as combining them usually means the overhead costs can be reduced as a percentage of the asset value. Administration and management costs are often high in VCTs so combining portfolios can spread the fixed costs over a bigger portfolio and the costs of a merger can be recovered in a few years. The costs of this merger are high at approximately £408,000 but they expect to recover that in 32 months.

MIG6 was previously named Talisman VCT and so far as I recall had a pretty dismal track record. It was effectively bailed out by Maven when they took over management I believe. It’s difficult to see the performance of it since then because it is not a subscriber to the AIC service.

The document received says that “both companies have investments in predominantly the same unlisted private companies (with only 2 exceptions as at the date of this document)….”. But looking at the individual holdings in the two companies in their last annual reports gives me some doubts. They have different year end dates and there is clearly some overlap but they don’t appear to be identical.

I can see why the merger might be in the interests of Maven as the manager, and in the interests of investors in MIG6, but I see little benefit for MAV4 shareholders so I will probably vote against it. But if other investors have any views on this merger, please let me know.

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.

The Political Manifestos and their Impacts on Investors

Here are some comments on the manifestos of the major political parties, now that they are all available. I cover specifically how they might affect investors, the impact of tax changes and the general economic impacts. However most readers will probably have already realised that political manifestos are about bribes to the electorate, or to put it more politely, attempts to meet their concerns and aspirations. However in this particular election, spending commitments certainly seem to be some of the most aggressive ever seen.

Labour Party: I won’t spend a lot of time on this one as most readers of this blog will have already realised that financially it is very negative for the UK economy and for investors. It’s introduced with the headline “It’s time for real change”, but that actually seems to be more a change to revert to 1960s socialism than changes to improve society as a whole. It includes extensive renationalisation of water/energy utility companies and Royal Mail, part nationalisation of BT Group and confiscating 10% of public company shares to give to employees. It also commits to wholesale intervention in the economy by creating a £400 billion “National Transformation Fund”. That appears to include a commitment to revive declining industries, i.e. bail-outs of steel making companies one presumes.  It includes promises to invest in three new electric battery gigafactories and four metal reprocessing plants for steel and a new plastics remanufacturing industry “thus creating thousands of jobs”. This is very much old school socialism which expected that direct intervention in the economy could create new industries and new jobs, but it never really worked as Governments are inept at identifying where money should best be invested. Companies can do that because they have a keen interest in the return that will be made while civil servants do not.

The best comment on the BT proposals was in a letter to the FT by the former head of regulator OFTEL Sir Bryan Carsberg. He said his memory was clear about the shortcomings of BT before privatisation even if many other people do not remember. The lack of competition meant that the company had no incentive to improve efficiency or take advantage of new technological developments. Monopolies are always poor performers in essence.

Trade union law will have the clock turned back with a new Ministry of Employment Rights established. Incredibly there is a commitment to “introducing a legal right to collective consultation on the implementation of new technology in workplaces”. Clearly there are some Luddites in the Labour Party. The more one reads their manifesto, the more it reminds you of years gone by. This writer is old enough to remember the Harold Wilson speech on the “white heat of a scientific revolution” by which he intended to revitalise the UK economy. It only partly happened and at enormous cost. In the same speech he also said that there was “no room for Luddites in the Socialist Party” but that has changed apparently. The manifesto includes a very clear commitment to “rewrite the rules of the economy”. A rise in the minimum wage might also damage companies.

The cost of financing all the commitments is truly enormous, and that is not even taking account of the £58 billion just promised to restore pension commitments lost to some women due to rises in their pension age which is not in the manifesto. Taxes will need to rise substantially to finance all the commitments – that means increases in corporation tax which may damage business, and rises in capital gains tax to equalise it with income tax plus higher rates of income tax for high earners.

But the real damage to UK investors will be the wholesale intervention in the economy in the attempt to create a socialist paradise. And I have not even covered the confusion and contradictions in Labour’s Brexit policy which is downplayed in their manifesto.

Conservative Party: The other main parties are all focusing on Brexit so the Conservative’s title headline in their manifesto is “Get Brexit Done – Unleash Britain’s Potential”.  In comparison with the other parties it is relatively fiscally conservative with no major changes to taxation but some commitments on spending.

Many of their commitments, such as on longer-term social care funding, are subject to consultation but there are some short term increases in that, and for education, for the Police and for the NHS.

Immigration will be restricted by introducing an Australian-style points-based system. This might impose extra costs on some sectors of the economy, but may result in more investment in education/training and more capital investment. This might well increase productivity which is a major problem in the UK.

There is a commitment to invest £100 billion in additional infrastructure such as roads and rail. That includes £28.8 billion on strategic and local roads and £1 billion on a fast-charging network for electric vehicles. Compare that though with the cost of £81 billion now forecast in the manifesto for HS2 a decision on which is left to the Oakervee review.

It is proposed to “review and reform” entrepreneurs tax relief as it is not apparently meeting objectives. There will be further clampdowns on tax evasion and implementation of a Digital Services Tax already planned for 2020.

Reforms are planned to insolvency rules and the audit regime which must be welcomed, but details of what is planned are minimal. They also plan to “improve incentives to attack the problem of excessive executive pay and rewards for failure”. It will be interesting to see how that is going to be done in reality.

There is a plan to create a new independent “Office for Environmental Protection” which will introduce legal targets including for air pollution. This could be very expensive for both companies and individuals. The Government has already committed to a “net zero” carbon target by 2050 but Cambridge Professor Michael Kelly has said that the cost of decarbonising the economy has been grossly underestimated. He has suggested the cost should run into trillions of pounds. But again there are few details in the manifesto on how these commitments will be implemented in practice. Nobody really knows what is the real cost of such a policy.

There are though firm commitments to review the Fixed Term Parliament Act, to retain the “first past the post” voting system, to improve voter identification and reduce fraud, and to avoid Judicial Reviews being used to undermine political democracy. They also commit to review the workings of Parliament – this might lead to a written constitution which this writer thinks is sorely needed to avoid a repeat of recent events which led to gridlock in Parliament and allegedly partisan decisions by both the Speaker and the Supreme Court.

With promises not to increase income tax, VAT or National Insurance (a “triple-tax lock” in addition to the expensive triple lock on pensions which will be retained) this is generally a positive manifesto for most investors and apart from the issues mentioned above should be positive for the economy. A Conservative Government might also restore confidence in overseas investors which may well account for the recent pick-up in the stock market indices as the Conservatives look like they are heading for a significant majority. Such an outcome will also remove some of the uncertainty, if not all, over Brexit which will give more confidence to UK businesses to invest in the future.

In summary the Conservative manifesto is likely to please many and displease few (apart from those opposed to Brexit) so it could be seen as a “safe bet” to avoid any last-minute popularity reversal as happened at the last general election.

The minority parties are losing votes in the polls as they always do when a general election looms and the public realise that there are only two likely candidates for Prime Minister – in this case Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson. Is that a question of whom the public trusts? This was an issue raised in one of the recent panel debates but I think nobody trusts any politicians nowadays. It is more a question of whom the voters personally like as regrettably hardly anyone reads the manifestos.

But here’s a brief view of the minority parties’ platforms:

Brexit Party: Their manifesto (or “Contract with the People” as they prefer to call it), is definitely sketchy in comparison with the two main parties and is many fewer pages in length. They want, unsurprisingly, a “clean-break Brexit”, and they want a “political revolution” to reform the voting system.

They would raise £200 billion to invest in regional regeneration, the support of key sectors of the economy, the young, the High Street and families. Note the traditionally socialist commitment to support “strategic industries”. The £200 billion would be raised by scrapping HS2, saving the EU contribution, recovering money from the EIB and cutting the foreign aid budget, although I am not sure that adds up to £200 billion.

They would scrap Inheritance Tax and scrap interest on student loans and cut VAT on domestic fuel which will all be quite significant costs. They also promise more investment in the NHS but so do all the other parties – at least there is a consensus on that point.

The Liberal Democrat Party:  They have clearly decided their vote winning approach will be a commitment to stop Brexit, i.e. revoke Article 50. They have a strong endorsement of “green” policies and propose a new tax on “frequent-flyers”. That might include Jo Swinson herself it seems as she has taken 77 flights in 18 months according to the Daily Mail.

Two unusual commitments are to legalise cannabis and freeze all train fares (rather like the freeze in London on bus and Underground fares which has resulted in a £1 billion deficit in TfL finances, but even more expensive no doubt).

Corporation Tax would revert to 20% and Capital Gains tax will be unified with income tax with no separate allowances so private investors would certainly be hit.

The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) are focusing on another referendum for an independent Scotland as usual, an unrealistic proposition as no other party is supporting that and it would be make Scotland much poorer, plus a ragbag of populist commitments. They clearly oppose Brexit.  As most readers will not find an SNP candidate standing in their local constituency I shall say no more on the subject. You can also go and read their manifesto on the web where it is easy to find all the party manifestos. Likewise for the Welsh and Irish leaning parties.

In summary, this election is somewhat of a no-brainer for investors unless they feel that the Boris Johnson version of Brexit is going to be very damaging for the UK economy, in which case they have a simple choice – vote LibDem or SNP as Labour’s position is too confusing. Alternatively they can play at “tactical voting” to get the party they want info power. There is more than one tactical voting web site to advise you which is the best alternative option but be wary – they seem to be run by organisations with a preconceived preference.

If readers consider I have missed out anything important from this analysis, please let me know.

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.

Fevertree Fall, Trading Times and More on HBOS/Lloyds

Last week when I spoke at the Mello event I talked about my investment winners over the past few years. One of them was Fevertree (FEVR) but I was asked why I no longer held the shares. I gave a brief explanation at the time but there is good exposition of the issues by Phil Oakley in this week’s Investors Chronicle.

Fevertree’s share price peaked at 3200p in May 2019 but it’s now about 1900p. It has declined so much in the last few months that I considered buying it back but it has also perked up in the last few days so it did not reach my target price. Phil’s article is headed “Fevertree may fall further”. This is what he has to say about the business: “The high selling price of its products make for high profit margins. Combine this with an asset-light balance sheet and you have a recipe for an outstanding business with high returns on investment and lots of free cash”. But he is wary of their reliance on sales of tonic and on the UK market.

Will they manage to continue to achieve high growth rates? One concern I have is that every luxury hotel or good restaurant I have visited in the last two years has served Fevertree in my gin and tonic. Growth in the UK must surely be becoming limited. So future growth surely depends on them making a success of the US market. In their interim results in July the company talked about “encouraging momentum in the US” but we have heard nothing more since. Phil Oakley also points out that their competitors have reacted to the success of Fevertree with their own “premium” mixer offerings. Future growth is still well discounted in the current share price in my view so I am not rushing to jump back in until the picture becomes clearer.

Fevertree is a great branding and marketing story but I fear that there are ultimately no barriers to entry in their market. Others can surely copy their business model relatively easily.

Another article in this week’s Investors Chronicle was on changing market trading times. Would shorter hours improve markets is the question they ask? The UK LSE has some of the longest trading hours in the world. It opens at 8.00 am and closes at 4.30 pm but there are opening and closing auctions before and after those times.

RNS announcements are issued starting at 7.00 am so anyone who wishes to be on top of the news has to get up early. Many older private investors like me would prefer a later market start time. Although I tend to make most of my trades in the early morning as I review investments in the evening and make decisions on what to do the next day, it seems much of the market trading volume takes place in the last hour of the trading day. A more concentrated trading day might actually improve liquidity and avoid the volatility one sees in small cap stocks. In summary I am all in favour of a shorter trading day – 10.00 to 4.00 pm would be fine and even a break for lunch as they have in Japan would not be amiss.

Lastly, as a follow up to my previous blog story on the failure of the HBOS/Lloyds legal claim, I would like to point out that the judge made it clear in his judgement that there were significant omissions from the prospectus that was issued at the time.

Specifically he says in his Executive Summary: “But I consider that the Circular should have disclosed the existence of the ELA facility, not in terms such as would excite damaging speculation but in terms which indicated its existence”; and “Likewise, I consider that the board ought to have disclosed the Lloyds Repo. The board assumed that because at the time of its grant it had been treated by the authorities as “ordinary course” business that provided an answer to all subsequent questions. But whether it should be disclosed in the Circular as material to an informed decision was a separate question. The Court must answer that question on an objective basis. The size of the facility, the fact that it was extended in tight markets, the fact that it was linked to the Acquisition and was part of a systemic rescue package showed that this was a special contract which ought to have been disclosed”  (see paragraphs 46/47 of the Executive Summary which can be obtained from here:  https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sharp-others-v-blank-others-hbos-judgment/

There were also possible other omissions from the disclosures which the judge did not consider but the above does provide prima facie evidence of a breach of the Prospectus Rules.  The directors of the company (Sir Victor Blank and others) would certainly have been aware of this funding and hence they might be considered to be negligent.

Investors in Lloyds TSB (I was one of them) were misled by these omissions and the subsequent outcome was financially very damaging to those investors.

I have written to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) suggesting that it needs to investigate these matters as a breach of the Prospectus Rules surely is a matter that makes the transgressors liable to sanctions under the Rules and there is no statute of limitation in regard to these matters. I suggest other investors in Lloyds TSB should do likewise and I have suggested ShareSoc should also take up this issue.

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.

 

Pound Jumps Up on Brexit Party News and Portfolio Impact

The pound has risen by about 1% against the US Dollar and Euro today with suggestions that it is the news from Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party that prompted it. He won’t be putting up candidates in seats where the Conservatives won the vote last time when he was previously threatening to have candidates stand in all constituencies. This makes some sense because even if they have good candidates willing to stand, building a local campaigning organisation from scratch to get the vote out is not easy. It strengthens the probability of a Conservative win although there is still some risk because in marginal seats which the Conservatives hoped to win but lost last time there could still be a split vote.

The result has been quite significant on my portfolio with companies with large overseas revenues and profits falling while UK dominated businesses rose. That was particularly so with Greggs (GRG) who are up 16% on the day after a trading statement that indicated overall sales were up 12.4% for the last 6 weeks and year end figures should be even better than expected.  Sales growth continues to be driven by increased customer visits apparently but as many of their outlets are now not on the High Street I suggest that should not be seen as a revival for other retail businesses. But Greggs certainly seem to have a winning formula of late as they consistently report positive news.

I tend not to react to short term changes in exchange rates because the impact can be more complex that first appears. I will not therefore be taking any steps as a result. In any case my overall portfolio is up 0.5% on the day so this might just reflect more confidence that the political log-jam will finally be resolved in a few weeks’ time. Investor confidence has a big influence on markets of course.

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.

A Question Answered on Winners and Losers

When I tweeted a mention of my forthcoming presentation on Business Perspective Investing, Andrew responded that he would be interested in a list of my winners and losers over the years and lessons learnt. So here’s some of them.

Health warning: this is not a recommendation to buy, sell or otherwise speculate in these companies. Some of the companies have been sold, or been delisted due to takeovers or other reasons. The notes are only a very trivial analysis of the reasons I purchased them. I will not be advising of future changes to my shareholdings and I have not included relatively new purchases for the same reason.

I give the company name, the year first purchased and the compound annual return (including dividends) reported by Sharescope up to the current date, or when sold. Note that I rarely purchase large holdings at once, but tend to buy more over time if the performance is good. If the performance is poor they are sold so the losses are minimised.

Most of the winning companies show consistent growth in revenue, operate in growing markets, have a high return on capital, positive cash flow, some intellectual property (IP) and competent management. Many of the companies have exploited the internet to provider a quicker or lower cost service.

Some of the Winners:

4Imprint (2016: 31.0%). A simple business distributing promotional merchandise, sold over the internet.

AB Dynamics (2015: 74.6%). Automotive technology gaining from the need for improved testing requirements and automated vehicle needs.

Abcam (2006: 31.1%). Distributor and producer of antibodies and proteins used in medical research, sold over the internet.

Accesso (2012: 32.0%). Visitor attraction software and services. Consolidator in a diverse sector.

Bioventix (2014: 39.3%). Producer of antibodies for medical diagnostics.

Boohoo (2014: 108.8%). On-line clothes retailer. Benefiting from changing shopping habits.

Delcam (2003: 26.3%). Computer aided design software for manufacturing.

Diploma (2015: 28.6%). Specialised technical products in life sciences, seals and controls.

DotDigital (2011: 33.2%). Email and other business marketing services.

Fevertree (2017: 89.4%). Producer/distributor of drinks and mixers. Great marketing and strong branding with outsourced manufacturing.

GB Group (2003: 31.6%). Identity checking internet services, benefiting from the need for quicker ID checks.

Ideagen (2012: 36.0%). Software for GRC applications. Driven by both organic growth and acquisitions, higher regulatory demands and strong sales management.

Judges Scientific (2010: 25.6%). Producer of scientific instruments. Organic and acquisition growth and emphasis on buying small companies that are cheap that can deliver a high return on capital.

Moneysupermarket (2011: 19.6%). Internet price comparison services.

Rightmove (2012: 21.2%). On-line estate agency portal. Benefiting from network effects and being the market leader.

Safestore (2018: 29.5%). Self-storage property company. Growing need to store personal and business items.

Segro (2016: 26.1%). Property company specialising in warehousing. A growing sector from internet distribution need.

Tracsis (2013: 17.1%). Software for rail operators.

Victoria (2012: 74.8%). Floor covering manufacturer led by charismatic manager.

Some of the Losers:

Blancco Technology (2016: -34.1%). IT product erasure and diagnostics. Dubious and inaccurate accounts.

Patisserie Holdings (2017: -100%). Totally fraudulent accounts led by Executive Chairman who failed to watch the detail I suggest.

As you can see, the industries in which the successful companies operate are quite varied but there is a strong focus on “newer technology” companies providing internet services or software. Although technology has been a hot sector in recent years, that has been so for most of my investing life and I expect it to continue. Note how my prejudices against certain sectors are reflected in the above list. Although I have invested in a few mining and oil producers over the years, they were generally not successful investments. Likewise financial businesses with minor exceptions.

The per annum returns may not appear spectacular but it is the high returns over many years that makes them an outstanding investment (or “ten baggers” as some are – for example Abcam has compounded at over 30% per annum for thirteen years). It may be unable to continue to do so but the company still has ambitious growth plans.

The high performing companies listed tend to be smaller ones but my portfolio does hold some larger FTSE-100 and FTSE-250 companies. The more successful ones of those don’t achieve such high returns as the companies listed above but typically more in the 10% to 20% per annum range. I also hold a number of investment trusts and funds which have similar returns. But the lower returns on those are compensated for by the lower risks associated with them.

Some of the companies have changing performance over time. For example Accesso was a strong performer until recently. I tend to top-slice companies when they become over-rated by the market or there are significant changes in the business, and try to buy when they are still cheap.

Andrew also asked “if people didn’t put as much time into it as you, do you think they can make it work?” Effort in any game is rewarded. Likewise the more experience you have the better you get. That usually means some time commitment is required. But whether you spend a lot of time or little, the key is to use the time effectively and not try to research everything in absolute detail. There is more information available than you can hope to handle in the modern world. Experience tells you what is important of course and what can be ignored. My book “Business Perspective Investing” just suggests what is important to look at, and what is not.

Note that I will be giving some overall portfolio performance information at my presentation next Tuesday (the 12th November at the Mello London event).

Incidentally ShareSoc/UKSA have published their joint submission to the consultation on “Intermediated Investments” from the Law Commission. It is very similar in content to my own but even more detailed on the problems of nominee accounts and how they should be fixed. It’s well worth reading. See here:

https://www.sharesoc.org/sharesoc-news/sharesoc-uksa-response-law-commission-review-of-intermediated-securities-call-for-evidence/

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.

The Vultures are Circling – Woodford, Carpetright et al

With the demise of the Neil Woodford’s empire and the winding up of the Woodford Equity Income Fund, investors are looking for whom to blame – other than themselves of course for investing in his funds. One target is Hargreaves Lansdown (HL.) and other fund platforms who had it on their recommended or “best buy” lists, including long after the fund’s problems were apparent. Now lawyers are only too glad to help in such circumstances and at least two firms have suggested they can assist.

One is Slater & Gordon. They say they are investigating possible claims against HL. and that “We’re concerned to establish if there was any actionable wrongdoing or conflict of interest by Hargreaves Lansdown in continuing to include Woodford funds on their ‘Best Buy’ Lists if it had concerns as to their underlying investments. We’ll also be looking at the price achieved when buying and selling instruments, such as ordinary shares, on the Hargraves Lansdown platform and whether or not this represents Best Execution”. You can register your interest here: https://tinyurl.com/yyrhbfb3

Another legal firm looking at such a claim is Leigh Day who say they already have 500 investors interested in pursuing a case. See https://tinyurl.com/y6r2buav for more information.

Having been involved in a number of similar legal cases in the past, my advice is that there is no harm in registering an interest but do not pay money up front and certainly not until the basis of any legal claim is clear. In addition bear in mind that it would be very expensive to pursue such a claim and lawyers may be willing to do so simply in anticipation of high fees when there is no certainty of winning a case. How is the case to be financed is one question to ask? Funding such cases by private investors alone (the majority of HL. clients) is likely to be difficult so “litigation funding” is likely to be required which can be expensive and erode likely returns. Insurance to cover the risk of losing the case is also needed and expensive.

Yesterday saw news announcements from three companies I have held in the past but all sold some time ago. The most significant was from Carpetright (CPR) which I last sold in 2010 at about 800p. It’s been downhill ever since. The Daily Telegraph ran an article today suggesting that this was a zombie company and that it was a good time of year for zombie slaying. After the announcement of a trading update and possible bid yesterday the share price is now 5p.

The Board of Directors “believes that Carpetright is performing well….” and “the prolonged sales decline appears to be bottoming out….”, but the company has too much debt and needs refinancing. One of its major lenders and shareholders is Meditor who have proposed to make a cash offer of 5p per share for the company. The share price promptly halved to that level because it is likely that the offer will be accepted by enough shareholders to be approved. So it looks like we will have a company with revenues of £380 million (but no profits), sold for £15 million. Founder Lord Harris, who is long departed, must be crying over this turn of events. But it demonstrates that when a company is in hock to its bankers and dominant shareholders, minority investors should steer clear.

Another announcement was from Proactis Holdings (PHD) which I sold fortuitously in mid-2018. They announced Final Results yesterday. Revenues increased by 4% but a large loss of £26 million was reported due to a large impairment charge against its US operations. The business has undertaken an operational review and restructuring is in progress. It has also been put up for sale but there is little news on potential “expressions of interest”. Just too many uncertainties and debt way too high (now equal to market cap) in my opinion.

The third announcement was from Smartspace Software (SMRT) which I sold earlier this year at more than the current share price as progress seemed to be slow and I wanted to tidy up my over-large portfolio. It reported interim results where revenue was up 57% but there was a large loss reported (more than revenue). There were some positive noises from the CEO so the share price only fell 0.7%. The company has some interesting products for managing office space but it’s a typical “story” stock where the potential seems high but it has yet to prove it can run a profitable business.

I have also noticed lately that the fizz has gone out of the share price of Fevertree (FEVR). It’s been falling for some time. I sold it in 2018 at a much higher level. It still looks quite expensive on a prospective p/e basis. Overall revenue is still growing rapidly but the USA is still the big potential market yet to be proven. I like the business model and the management even if I don’t personally like the main product. But perhaps one to keep an eye on. But generally buying back into past investments can be a mistake.

Given my track record on the above, perhaps my next investment book should not be on choosing new investments but on choosing when to sell existing ones?

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.

Brexit Bounce, Green Accreditation, Security Issues and Hargreaves Lansdown AGM

The FTSE and my portfolio jumped up this morning on the hope of a Brexit Agreement after all. RBS is up 16% which seems to be a function of euphoria. I think I’ll wait and see the progress of discussions in the next few days before plunging in to buy some more stocks. But if an Agreement is reached then the market is likely to power ahead so keep that cash handy.

The London Stock Exchange (LSE) announced today a new “Green Accreditation” scheme which will recognize companies and funds that derive 50% or more of their revenues from products or services that contribute to the global green economy. One company that has promptly announced accreditation is Blancco Technology (BLTG) in which I hold a very few shares after a disappointing track record. How do they qualify for this award? They do so because they provided data erasure services thereby helping people to recycle and reuse hardware rather than scrap it. No doubt there will be other “virtue signalers” claiming this award but I doubt it will make a lot of difference to my investment choices.

The takeover of Cobham (COB) has run into a lot of criticism about the threat to national security. The founding family have raised concerns and the Government has decided to intervene. On a personal note should I be worried that our new home security system based on Hikvision technology leaves us open to being hacked? Not only that but I also have a Huawei smartwatch. Both companies have been banned by the US due to their links to the Chinese Government. Hikvision have 1.3 million cameras installed in the UK, often in NHS facilities. This is surely an issue where the Government should be providing some advice. Why do we now have cameras all around our house? Not because of worries that my views on Brexit might stimulate some demonstrators but because the home of two Asian families in our street were recently burgled. Apparently such families are particularly at threat of such attacks because they often keep gold at home. Readers can be assured that there are no gold bars in our house. The burglaries that did take place were to houses with non-functioning alarm systems but my wife was somewhat concerned.

There was an interesting report in the Financial Times on the Hargreaves Lansdown (HL.) Annual General Meeting (I do not hold the shares). It sounds like it was a lively affair. Apparently some shareholders were not happy with the reaction of HL to the Woodford Equity Income Fund suspension after HL had promoted the fund. One shareholder said the reopening of the fund “has been postponed more often than Brexit” and suggested that HL should push for Woodford to liquidate the fund immediately. Comment: liquidating the fund abruptly would be easier said than done due to the nature of its holdings, but I agree that more vigorous action could have been taken. The fact that Neil Woodford is still running the fund when it will clearly be every unlikely to recover rapidly if at all is far from ideal.

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.