Nav 239.6p |
nav 236.7p , up 1.1%, I thought it would be flat.
The nav moves in mysterious ways with this stock. When you think it should be going up it goes down and vice versa. |
nav now 236.8p and discount to nav 23.5%
If the dividend is maintained then the yield is 6.3%. It won't be covered though. |
nav 234.2p |
bought more at 171.5p
nav 228p |
Nav is 233.3p. I've bought more at 176p |
Nav is now 232p but will be higher tomorrow if ftse100 holds onto its 1.3% gain.
I've bought more at 179p |
The LIO shares are no longer so important since they have fallen so much and are now only 4% of the nav
I'm in again at 175.75p which is well below the 226p nav. dyor. |
James doesn’t run it. Barlow is the CEO and oversees it with the board (but mainly him). My view is they should merge it. Maybe Edinburgh makes sense? If they did it at a small NAV discount (thus a bit enhancing to Edin), they (probably) wouldn’t take a bath on the div and they’d benefit from lower costs and a much smaller discount. Oh and likely better performance too! But my betting is they won’t. Loss of control? However, they need to do something radical. It’s too small, too expensive, has no USP, dreadful performance and they are chasing income. |
Unfortunately, it appears the son CEO has subtracted value over the last decade, rather than adding anything. Increased costs, sub-optimal allocation and Javelin disaster. I would like it swapped to James 100%, but doubt it will happen. Be nice if it stayed independent, but the constant meddling is not helping. Same story at the Investment Company, another old small investment trust. Alternatively, let Troy run it and see the discount disappear! |
I agree that if it was de Uphaugh dealing with the whole thing I'd be happy with that but it's the ability of the board to meddle with different fund allocations that bothers me and appears to be causing the current failures. I'm also a holder of EDIN and am very happy with the performance since he took over there.
As a conviction manager he went through a bad spell for a couple of years in his work at MAM but by sticking to his guns it came good. Certainly over the last 15 years that I've been following his work he has outperformed which is what matters to me not the day to day stuff.
With regard to Majedie it probably either needs winding up or being subsumed into a larger trust as SCIN is currently doing. |
James de Uphaugh will pretty much run the same portfolio in any of his vehicles, so that shouldn't impact. They would be better just using his approach across the entire portfolio. Edinburgh Investment Trust has improved with him. He's good for a bit of out-performance against the FTSE-All Share in my view. Nothing stellar, but a reasonable record. |
Hi brwo349. Although MAM will continue to manage the assets as described in the monthly fact sheet " The board remains responsible for asset allocation between Liontrust Funds".
Like others on here I fear that James de Uphaugh will now be too busy with Liontrust and Edinburgh Investment Trust to be too bothered about a small trust like this. I've met the man and liked his style which was why I invested in the first place but now I'm seriously looking at the exit door. |
I'm in for some more at 192p. There are things I like such as the unrecognised potential future consideration for MAM, the juicy dividend coming up, the 20% discount and I also think with Liontrust taking over the management things will be better next year. Onwards and upwards. |
More funds? I’d demand a small discount? Either way it’d have to be marginally NAV enhancing for the acquirer to make it work. I’ve sold some last two days. Mercantile is trading (was) at 15% discount and is much better run. |
Thanks Andy, got you now. Possibly, but I can't see that they have anything but a very weak hand to play. Hope I'm wrong . I like the idea of merging but again what would be in it for the other side? |
They have a pot of capital which is ostensibly for the family. We are a bit of an afterthought! Divs are clearly important to them. Control is clearly an issue too. My advice would be to merge with a larger pot of capital like Murray International. They (probably) almost maintain the income, they get a better rating on the capital and the fees are much lower. It is too small to continue as is. Fees too high and absolutely no raison d’etre. |
I mean the deferred consideration for MAM which if memory serves is worth a maximum of £5m. They might be trying to do a deal on it? |
Yes, all a bit of a disaster. MAM was sold at the worst possible point as value started to outperform growth. Unfortunately the deal wasn’t done for cash, but for shares in a growth company which is derating by c50%. Double whammy of stupidity by MAM, not that the investment trust had much control. It’s fairly inevitable that MAM will be fired here. 3rd or 4th iteration of how they invest. All have failed so far. |
I'm in full agreement with you Andy, I like you're summary "wretched". Can you explain what you mean by contingent value? |
Maybe they are trying to do a deal on the contingent value? It’s not in the NAV. Wretched statement. |
They can’t afford to maintain the divi. They’ve £150m odd of gross assets. That needs to produce £6m of divs give or take then cover the other costs. I haven’t looked but presume other costs are partially capitalised (wrongly given it’s dire capital performance longer term but hey!). So they’ve £150m of assets to produce, let’s say, £7m. That’s a yield of 4.6%. If it were solely UK that might be doable but they espouse to be (sort of) global. Doesn’t compute. It’s a muddle and they are kicking can down road. They need to completely reinvent themselves, give themselves a raison d’etre which might close the discount too. But this statement is poor, lacking clarity. |
The report tells you every MAM trust has underperformed its benchmark with the exception of Tortoise. There is no real commentary on why that poor performance has occurred beyond those somewhat opaque overweight/underweight tables. I noted that one of the overweight positions was in Sberbank but unless I missed it there was no statement on Russian/Ukranian exposure
The Liontrust deal or something like it was inevitable as an exit route for the founders of MAM, Majedie allowed themselves to become hostage to that situation and watched on as half the founding team left and performance drifted |
Of course it is and I hope they maintain the full year as well even if they are paying some of it out of reserves. They can well afford it.
I don't deny the year has been a disaster but that is due almost entirely to the Liontrust transaction. |
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Hot Features
Premium
