Schroder Uk Public Private Share Discussion Threads

[johnwig] 03/8/2020 08:57

Oxford Nanopore was, in the latest list, third by value in SUPP's portfolio.

But do not count any chickens, folks. Spectoacc, the world's most distinguished troll water diviner and share valuer has declared that Oxford Nanopore has "not-asset-value" (whatever that may mean, perhaps we should ask winnie or wiggy).

So here we are, hopes dashed yet again. Gosh, I wish I was as omniscient as speccy...

[kooba] 03/8/2020 07:18

Think this diagnostic application grows here and abroad.Differentiating between CVD19 and seasonal flu is a unique offering I believe and should be a major help to nhs going into winter.Also the cost efficiency and mobility of offering testing to large groups in situ is very time saving and effective where there are clusters.At least one SUPP holding should be looking at a positive revaluation in due course!Leveraging off their core technology to make real world applications shows the adaptable and global market for their product.Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, said of LamPORE: "It's the best of its kind anywhere in the world."

[18bt] 03/8/2020 06:37

Boost to Oxford Nanopore valutation with the quick COVID tests?

[johnwig] 26/7/2020 13:07

Winnie probably lives next door to Daffy Jones. They're inseparable. LOL

[jonwig] 26/7/2020 08:31

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?

[johnwig] 24/7/2020 16:43

And what about specto's lofty claim to be able to see the future? After all he has announced that the price of SUPP in time ahead is between 0p and 20p. What is the point of endlessly debating it here, then?

OK it might be worth assessing his weaselly troll-claim (made again and again including elsewhere TODAY!)that the price did drop below 20p. Of course for a matter of a few minutes it did drop briefly a fraction of a penny below. Is that what he really meant? And more pertinently has it ever got anywhere near the point of 0p which is the more significant part of the same prediction? (The minuscule drop happened on March 23 when he and the rest of the trolls here lost nearly all their money.)

But give him that point and he's still not bright enough to realise that he made that same prediction more than once AFTER that drop, so it still stands! If anybody thinks that specto has any predictive capabilities, for God's sake do not hold your breath.


One final observation. Specto has taken issue with those people who inform us that specto and adae are nicknames for the same person. Well specto, old boy, if you can find this mythical 'other' person hire him or her as your ghost-writer. He/she has exactly the same horrible mainly pronoun-free "English" style as has been irritating all the rest of us for the past many months or decades. Or perhaps you are an alien after all.

[chucko1] 24/7/2020 15:44

@Specto, on your 485, I suspect the Link NAV has a lot, lot further to fall (ceteris paribus). But I cannot say if that is wholly reflected in the current share price of twenty-five new pence.

I, too, am interested to know why it should not be worth two whole crowns, rather than the single crown the market is willing to exchange for it. But, as you say, it's a question no one seems willing to address.

[spectoacc] 24/7/2020 15:30

@BB - they've moved it to qtrly, so mid to late September for next one.

To be fair, there was impressive depth in the 22nd June one - a couple of pages about the portfolio co's.

As ever with SUPP, the key ones are Rutherford, Atom, and Oxford Nano, being over 42% on their own.

Edit - Some interesting developments re Northern Trust:

[biggest bill] 24/7/2020 15:19

Does anybody know when the nav will be updated again? There appear to be multiple companies in the portfolio whose valuation is extremely out of date.

[jonwig] 24/7/2020 14:47

@ Biggest Bill - I'm sorry to have moderated (ie. deleted your posts). With trolls it's essential to deny oxygen, to "cancel" them.

@Spec - please edit out your first para.

[spectoacc] 24/7/2020 14:31

Still waiting for a SUPP supporter to put me right on any of the points in Post 479. Unless they all really still believe the Link NAV, even now?

[johnwig] 24/7/2020 09:09

Desperate troll gibberish. LOL

[spectoacc] 24/7/2020 08:46

The RUTH investment - notionally the largest holding in SUPP - still intrigues me, and I wish a knowledgeable holder of SUPP (there must be such a person?) would post on here & clarify what they know.

This is RUTH's (recent) analysis of their shareholder register:

Shareholder
Total number
of shares
% of total
issued share
capital
Nortrust Nominees Ltd
(Account WIZ01) 52,136,364 27.1%
Nortrust Nominees Ltd
(Account WIX01) 51,550,277 26.8%
Cruisen Ltd 14,500,000 7.5%
The Wales Life Sciences
Investment Fund LP 10,000,000 5.2%
Global Healthcare Ltd 7,000,000 3.6%
WND Holding Ltd 6,956,522 3.6%
Smart Profit Ltd 6,956,522 3.6%


Hasn't formatted well, but Nortrust Nominees is (ex)Woodford holdings. Is this a split btwn voting & non-voting (which we know has happened due to the excessive call on one entity, ie SUPP), or is it between SUPP and the former WEIF? In which case, how on earth will WEIF manage to offload their stake? Says something about liquidity if the WEIF theory is correct; says something very interesting about valuation (ie it's sensible) if it's all SUPP.

SUPP did say (last AR):

"Rutherford Health (previously called Proton Partners): -3.07%
– as a result of delays in the ramp-up of new centres."

So they knocked c.3% off the valuation in that AR, confirming it's not valued at share price (as we know) & have presumably put some thought into it.


However (again not formatted well):

Rutherford Health 26% 69,500 80,811 1,465 (21,518) 118,410


First is % of share capital owned: 26%, ie the WEIF theroy above is the correct one.

Second is Cost of the investment in £m, ie £69.5m spent by SUPP to acquire it.

Third is Fair Value - not share price - of £80.8m.

I don't know what SUPP (WPCT) first paid per share for RUTH (then PP), but I do know they've massively overpaid later on, thanks to the Woodford "deal" that was meant to be exciseable on WIM, but ended up being met by SUPP shareholders. So the fact they've added £11m in value to the cost seems already too high.


But an alternative take - RUTH is "valued" (it doesn't trade) at share price at c.£450m.

Link/SUPP say 26% is worth c.£80m, so c.£308m mkt cap. Personally I'd value the heavily loss-making RUTH at nearer its property book cost, c.£160m (see RUTH thread), but c.£300m at least isn't outlandish, and isn't £450m. I see that as a positive for SUPP. (That, and the fact RUTH is never likely to be worthless, and almost falls into the "social good" category, unlike so many Neil & Craig punts. Genuinely like RUTH).


Caveats - big ones - SUPP's AR was to 31st Dec 2019, & they've subscribed for more at the £450m valuation since then I think?

Shows just how bad a deal the Call on SUPP has been, and how bad for SUPP shareholders - Link says (if my suppositions are correct) that RUTH's worth c.£300m, but SUPP subscribed for shares at "market" price and a c.£450m valuation. In an IT with already a debt problem. Why on earth didn't this end up on the much larger WEIF, or on WIM itself? A former manager shouldn't be able to bind the hands of later managers - where were the Board?


Am sure there's plenty I've missed, analysing two separate AR's from two separate issue dates, and would be delighted to hear any better analysis/corrections.

[spectoacc] 23/7/2020 07:08

Thanks both (@chucko1 - I think!). Have the little fella @Johnwig on Filter so don't know what he said, but let me know if it's anything relevant to SUPP - only through debate & investigation do we get to some sort of truth. (A category Link's NAV still fails to fall into).

[jonwig] 23/7/2020 07:05

secundum - sorry. You're providing oxygen.

(With that username I guess you're a lawyer or a priest: "secundum naturam".)

[essentialinvestor] 22/7/2020 23:14

Without wishing to get involved in any ongoing spat, those who cautioned
previously on WPCT and Woodford's open-ended funds, were arguably proven
spectacularly correct and validated.

Liquidity issues were raised on the WPCT board long before the financial press began asking similar questions. Hopefully those posts made some think twice.


And as a reminder:


The FT investigation in to the collapse is well worth a read.


Luck to anyone holding SUPP.