Schroder Uk Public Private Investors - SUPP

Schroder Uk Public Private Investors - SUPP

Best deals to access real time data!
Monthly Subscription
for only
Level 2 Basic
Monthly Subscription
for only
UK/US Silver
Monthly Subscription
for only
VAT not included
Stock Name Stock Symbol Market Stock Type
Schroder Uk Public Private Trust Plc SUPP London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Stock Price Last Trade
0.00 0.0% 34.275 08:00:09
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
more quote information »
Industry Sector

Top Investor Posts

chucko1: Further favourable press regarding ON. This has given a fair boost to IPO, but not, so far, to SUPP. Does anyone know what % of the fund is ON? If less than 5%, then it is almost irrelevant. This would be a shame for the long-suffering SUPP/WPCT investors as there are those who see ON as severely underrated, even at the muted issue talk price. In some sense, they have managed to switch ON for Revolut - it's a call that may define how Schroeders's stewardship of this fund is ultimately viewed. That said, it would only be fair to judge this after some extended period.
spectoacc: Undoubtedly an interesting strategy, one they're also pursuing within SBO. Basically: later funding rounds, miniscule stakes, during a bubble. Which isn't to say they won't get out again for a profit in a flotation. But they've no control over the timing. SUPP now own $13.7m of an allegedly $33bn co. A third of a thousandth of a %. ["Global neobank". No need to comment on that.] "Schroder UK Public Private Trust plc (the "Company") is pleased to announce it has made a $13.7m investment in the leading disruptive global neobank, Revolut Limited ("Revolut"). This represents the second new private equity investment since the appointment of Schroder Investment Management Ltd as the Company's Portfolio Manager and a clear demonstration of the continued progress towards rebalancing the portfolio. This investment is alongside Revolut's $800m Series E funding round led by new investors, SoftBank Vision Fund 2 and Tiger Global Management, valuing the business at $33 billion. The Company has invested on the same terms as the Series E." (For context: "Fintech startup Revolut has filed some financial results and is sharing details with the press. In 2020, the company reported $361 million in revenue (£261 million) — that's a 57% increase compared to 2019 revenue of $229 million (£166 million)"). Approx the same market cap as NatWest Group. SUPP NAV allegedly £471m, I'd question how far £10m ($13.7m) goes towards "..Rebalancing the portfolio". Says a lot more about whether the remaining stakes are worth supporting. Am sure Atom Bank would have appreciated the cash.
spectoacc: The Juniors get to punt on something at last: Https:// "Fund managers Tim and Ben said: ‘We see Tessian as a great fit for the portfolio – a high quality, UK-headquartered technology business, with highly reputable co-investors, that is pioneering a disruptive new approach to cybersecurity that is scaling internationally. We couldn’t be more excited by the opportunity that lies ahead of this high-growth innovative business.’ Great, but. They've put in £4.8m. It's a $500m co. Schroders have had more than that £4.8m out of SUPP in fees since getting to the point of making this first new investment. So even if it say trebles over the next 18 months, it'll only cover the fees that Woody wasn't charging. If I was a shareholder (ho ho) I'd very much want the eventual ON cash returning, not punted on de minimus holdings. Even assuming Tim & Ben have hidden talent, how many successful punts would be needed to triple the share price back to the issue price of 2015.
eeza: "Woodford’s involvement with Acacia reportedly came as a surprise to Link Fund Solutions, the company that oversaw his Woodford Equity Income Fund and took control of its assets following its collapse in 2019. Acacia has since bought more than a dozen of stocks which Link is in the process of selling off to claw back millions of pounds still owed to investors. One of those holdings, Oxford Nanopore, this month announced plans to float resulting in Woodford investors missing out on a potential £200 million windfall.............." "Neil Woodford has financed an extraordinary number of British life-sciences companies over the last 20 years. The scope of his involvement with these companies is unmatched in the UK. "He was the most successful portfolio manager for many, many years and I can tell you, in the course of my investment career I've met a few of the really legendary investors, and when I met Neil I knew I was standing in the presence of a truly exceptional investment manager."
spectoacc: Slowly catching up with the ST, an interesting snippet on ATOM - says they've successfully raised £40m "..From existing investors including Spanish lender BBVA". Only I recall it was £100m they needed. Says valuation "..Expected to have slipped from £530m at its last big funding round in 2019". Quelle surprise. Like RUTH, ATOM isn't one that's going to make SUPP investors their fortune. (Nothing is, but ON is the big juicy float we're waiting for). Would expect a small write-down at next SUPP NAV, conveniently masked by Kymab, Immunocore, & the -22% block sale. ATOM's float "...Pushed back a year to 2022 or 2023." Or 2024 or 2025? None of the above will surprise anyone who reads this BB. RUTH will also be interesting, tho I still think they'll go for bank debt - they've got property assets. But another loss-maker needing more cash to survive. ON need to get a shift on, while the IPO market is so SPAC-tacular.
spectoacc: ON is a fair point. Think I'd buy IPO Group for it - altho interesting IPO been small sellers. From what they announced at last ON fundraise (when IPO sold some), I think valued at c.£1.6bn, vs c.£1.8bn in Link's NAV now. Neither unreasonable, but there's going to be more dilution before profits. From ON website: "Seed funding was obtained in two rounds, from IP Group in 2005. In June 2006 the company raised £7.75m In March 2008 the company raised a further £10m. In January 2009 the Company announced an $18m (£11.9m) and a separate £2.1m investment In February 2010 Oxford Nanopore raised £17.4m from existing investors and new, undisclosed US-based investors. In April 2011 the Company raised £25m from existing and new institutional and independent investors based in the UK and US. In May 2012 the Company raised £31.4m ($50.8m), the majority of which was from existing investors. In October 2013 Oxford Nanopore raised £40m from new and existing investors in the US and Europe. In August 2014 Oxford Nanopore raised £35m from new and existing investors in the US and Europe. In July 2015 Oxford Nanopore raised £70m from new and existing investors in the US and Europe. In December 2016 Oxford Nanopore raised £100m from new and existing investors worldwide. In March 2018 Oxford Nanopore raised £100M ($140M) from global investors In 2020 Oxford Nanopore announced that it had raised £29M + £49.4M in new capital in two tranches" Expecting it to be marked up again at next NAV, based on the Covid newsflow.
jonwig: Times: Investors in the failed Woodford Equity Income fund have to endure a third delay in the publication of the details of what is left of their investment. Link Fund Solutions, the firm responsible for the fund, which is now called Equity Income, admitted last week that it will not be able to meet its plan to publish the full accounts, leaving investors in the dark about its holdings for at least another month. Link has been granted permission by the regulator to delay publication of the accounts, which investors rely on to see how their money is being managed. Normally investment houses publish them at least once a year. Link took the decision to shut down the fund, without consultation with investors, in October last year. It then hired two specialist firms to sell the fund’s assets and return money to investors. However, the process has been mired in controversy. Investor anger was fuelled after it emerged that some of the fund’s assets were offloaded to an American company, which was able to sell some of them on at a huge profit within hours. More than 6,000 people have registered with law firms that are considering group litigation against Link. Laura Suter of the investment platform AJ Bell said: “This is another blow to investors. When the accounts finally arrive, they will provide a bit more clarity to investors on the sale process and costs involved, but it will now be more than six months out of date by the time they are published.” In its March 12 letter to investors, Link said it had extended its accounting period end from December 31, 2019 to March 31, 2020. This was due to what the firm called an audit conflict. Fund groups would normally publish four months after the accounting period ends, so investors expected an update by the end of July. However, in a letter dated July 29, it said it could not meet this deadline because of Covid-19 and what it called a “requirement for additional control steps in the audit sign-off process”. It now says it expects an update by the end of September. Link has also confirmed it will pay £183.15 million to investors on Wednesday, in the third distribution of assets, taking the total amount paid back to £2.45 billion. This would leave an estimated £261 million in the fund. Grant Thornton, Link’s auditor, said the delay in publication “should not cause any undue concern” and that it would “ensure the accounts are thorough and correct, especially given the volume of post balance sheet events”.
jonwig: Telegraph: Investigators at the City regulator are examining whether the depositary for Neil Woodford’s flagship fund did its job properly before it collapsed last year. The investigation into Northern Trust was launched in recent months and follows an ongoing probe into Link Fund Solutions, the supervisor of the Woodford Equity Income Fund. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary investors were blocked from accessing their money when the fund run by the star stockpicker was suspended 13 months ago because it could not sell its assets quickly enough to meet withdrawal requests. The fund is now being liquidated and assets are being sold off so that investors can recover some of their losses. The Northern Trust probe has been ongoing for months, Wealth Manager first reported. The firm was responsible for ensuring that Link followed City rules. Link, in turn, was supposed to ensure that Mr Woodford complied with regulations for fund managers. Investigators are likely to examine whether Northern Trust took Link to task over the level of illiquid assets being held by the fund. The fund’s rules allowed investors to withdraw their money on demand but the proportion of its investments held in private companies rose over time, making it difficult to meet redemption requests. Questions may also be asked about how the fund valued the shares it held in unlisted companies, which included a slew of British pharmaceutical start-ups. Investors have been receiving money from the sale of the fund’s assets but have been told the final payment may not arrive until the end of the year. Lawyers preparing a class action suit against Link on behalf of investors believe their claim could exceed £160m and potentially bankrupt the firm, The Telegraph revealed this month. The FCA and Northern Trust declined to comment. So Link supervised Woody, and NT supervised Link. With three layers of supervision (add the FCA), what could possibly go wrong?
jonwig: Telegraph, some recycled material here: A class-action lawsuit by out-of-pocket investors against the supervisor of Neil Woodford’s collapsed flagship fund could be worth £160m. Lawyers preparing a claim against Link Fund Solutions, the fund administrator, believe an award could bankrupt the company and force investors to rely on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to get their money back, according to documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph. Mr Woodford’s equity income fund was shut last year when the star stock picker was unable to sell assets quickly enough to meet withdrawal requests from customers, because his fund had a large number of investments that were hard to sell. About 2,900 investors have approached Leigh Day, the law firm, about joining its legal action against Link, which was supposed to ensure their money was protected. Leigh Day believes it can represent about 40,000 investors, bringing its total claim to a possible £160m. The figure assumes an average initial investment of £8,155 and that investors have lost about half of their money, according to pitch documents seeking financial backing for the claim. Bozena Michalowska Howells, partner at Leigh Day, said: “Damages will depend entirely on individual cases ... We believe investors could receive more than this amount.” A claim of that size could overwhelm Link, whose annual accounts show pre-tax profits of £7.7m. “There is [a] risk that Link may default on an award of damages,” Leigh Day lawyers wrote. The lawyers expect investors could turn to the FSCS for claims of up to £85,000 per person as they are unlikely to have recourse to Link’s Australian parent company. Leigh Day is also weighing up a claim against Hargreaves Lansdown. The funds platform should have excluded the Woodford fund from its best buy list after 2016 due to the number of red flags over the fund’s liquidity, a report commissioned by Leigh Day from consultancy Fideres concluded. Link and Hargreaves Lansdown declined to comment.
jonwig: The Times: A £550m deal to rescue a portfolio of Neil Woodford’s stakes in biotech start-ups has collapsed — a development that is likely to deal another blow to investors in his failed fund and lead to a fire sale of 20 promising companies. A boutique investment bank that had been racing to assemble a group of international investors to save most of Woodford’s illiquid holdings — and return money to investors trapped in his equity income fund in the process — is understood to have missed the deadline to complete the deal. Now, difficult-to-sell stakes in small companies, such as the drug developer Immunocore, gene-sequencing “unicorn”; Oxford Nanopore and Rutherford Cancer Centres, are likely to be auctioned off at knock-down prices instead. It is the latest twist in the scandal that has rocked Europe’s fund management industry and left 300,000 investors stuck in Woodford’s flagship product with little hope of recouping all their money. Last month, administrators wrote to say they would receive an initial payout worth between 48p and 58p in the pound. The collapse of the rescue deal underlines how far the one-time star stockpicker strayed from his roots at Invesco, where he achieved stellar returns from blue-chip stocks over 25 years before starting his own investment management company. It also underscores how dependent the biotech industry had become on Woodford for cash. At one stage, almost any start-up looking for funding would visit him at his Oxford HQ. Woodford Equity Income was suspended in June after fears over its exposure to early-stage tech companies that were “illiquid̶1;, or hard to trade, led to a rush of redemption requests. The fund had also suffered from poorly performing investments in listed companies. At its peak in 2017, it had £10bn of assets. That had shrunk to £3.7bn by the time the fund was suspended and to £2.9bn when it was shut down in October. The investment giant BlackRock was appointed to sell its stakes in FTSE 100 companies, while advisory firm PJT Park Hill was instructed to find buyers for illiquid stocks such as 4D Pharma, Mereo BioPharma and Arix Bioscience. The fund’s liquid assets, which accounted for 74% of its value, have all been sold. In November, WG Partners, a bank specialising in life sciences deals, was given a period of exclusivity by PJT Park Hill to assemble a group of investors to buy a portfolio of biotech start-ups that accounted for most of the remaining 26% of assets. WG scoured America and China for investors. Its plan is understood to have fallen apart. Last week, the fund’s stake in ReNeuron, which was part of the 20-strong portfolio, was sold to a German investment group. Link, administrator to Woodford Equity Income, declined to comment on the WG deal. “It is in the best interests of all investors for the fund to be wound up on the basis of an orderly realisation of the fund’s assets,” Link said. No wonder WPCT has been sagging. This news won't have been a secret to many in the City. And if ram is right (#154), with BlackRock short on WPCT, you might ask "What did they know?", since BR and Park Hill are working on the same project.
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
Schroder U..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20211021 09:40:49