Schroder Uk Public Private Share Discussion Threads

[spectoacc] 24/9/2022 07:57

Personally I blame Schroders more for the NAV fiasco - what manager doesn't know the value of their holdings, or check them occasionally? They're heavily involved in eg valuing the unlisted holdings, in conjunction with Link.

The crux for me is the split of the fees - SDR take over £3m pa from SUPP, Link get all of £80k (for everything, not just the daily NAV).

[jonwig] 24/9/2022 06:55

topvest - when Bailey went before the Commons Finance Committee a few years ago, he dismissed any chance of action against Woodford with "There's no law against incompetence".

Link were there to ensure the rules were followed, and that's where they fell short. (Legally, Link was senior to Woodford.)

[topvest] 23/9/2022 20:58

Link seem to be getting all the blame for this shambles. I think its a bit unfair really. They have been shambolic that's for sure, but the real culprit is Woodford Investment Management. It seems a tad unfair that compensation always goes after those with the deepest pockets. At the end of the day investing is risky and if you lose money you have to put it down to experience and learn a lesson.

[spectoacc] 23/9/2022 07:38

The Times:

"Anyone buying SUPP shares for most of the period since April 26 arguably paid more than they needed to. That includes SUPP itself, which over the summer bought 2.1 million of its own shares for cancellation as part of a standard discount-narrowing exercise at a cost of £430,000 — inflicting further unnecessary costs on shareholders."


Good point. And:


"Schroders took £3.02 million in fees from SUPP last year; Link received £80,000."


SUPP share price down 45% over the year, but don't worry about Schroders.

[spectoacc] 22/9/2022 16:14

Taking Not Asset Value to a new level.

[cc2014] 21/9/2022 09:41

And Link up for another £50m fine from the FCA.

[cc2014] 21/9/2022 09:36

Unbelieveable. That's another 6.5% of the NAV gone because things aren't being managed correctly.

Shockingly it suggests to me that the fund manager isn't even looking at the values of the individual holdings, not even once a month and has no awareness of how the investments are performing.

Basically, take the management fee, name some staff working on SUPP, but in the background they only work 2 days a month on SUPP and do other things.


I'll buy anything if it's cheap enough or the discount is enough by whatever measure cheap is, but I'm sad to say I cannot be tempted in here or into SBO and SBSI gets no more than a glance at the price once a quarter.

The issue being here for me that what price on a wind-up? Who knows but I know it's far less than NAV.

[chucko1] 21/9/2022 09:15

The incompetence here is breathtaking. And at every conceivable level. In these situations, there will no doubt have been a lot of finger pointing, but the incompetence lies not just at LINK, but additionally with the fund managers. It points to an issue of low quality people (and I am not just talking about people on this board who had kept the faith!).

[spectoacc] 21/9/2022 07:01

You couldn't, and slipped out after close. Surely they and others hold a spreadsheet of the NAV? What else is incorrect?

Schroders to replace Link as AIFM. Whilst Link have always been a shambles - as known for a long time - having SUPP (mis)run by SDR as well as AIFM'd by SDR isn't good.

Schroders should either resign - immediately - or preferably put SUPP into run-off.

Why is that not obvious to them, and to all shareholders? It's been obvious to many on here for a very long time.

What value have the Schroders Juniors added during what's now years of running SUPP? Millions extracted in fees - what for? Judge it on s/p, or NAV, or new purchases, or managing down Woody's holdings, or competence - fail on every count.

Needs to happen either now, or when the large down-valuations of Tim/Ben/Roger's punts occurs.

Offer a rollover option into SBO, for those foolish enough to think they add anything.

[scrapheap] 20/9/2022 20:50

What an absolute shambles... Theyve been reporting a materially wrong nav for months.... You couldn't make it up

[cc2014] 13/9/2022 08:59

FCA 'likely' to seek £306m redress from Link Fund Solutions over Woodford mismanagement

[daffyjones] 09/9/2022 18:18

SUPP trading pretty much at an all-time low this week. What a disaster. They should have wound this one up rather than trying to make something of the mess Woody left behind

[spectoacc] 08/9/2022 16:18

Next year, quelle surprise, and "dependent upon market conditions":

[spectoacc] 06/9/2022 20:39

At least Tim/Ben/Roger's punts have been relatively tiny - all should be marked down at least 50% IMO, but thatwould affect the NAV only pennies.

Can see it taking at least one more period before Link accurately value them.

What SUPP badly needs is some compulsion to promise to return cash - would finally put a floor under the s/p.

[scrapheap] 06/9/2022 16:22

Unlisted values update to NAV due by end of September - given whats been happening in VCT NAVs, expecting a tidy mark down then and presume that's the reason for current weakness....

Will be clearer by the end of the month therefore what the more accurate discount is to be.

[spectoacc] 02/9/2022 15:35

Think it is down to just one or two - ATOM the obvious one, ONT still possible for recovery.

But still the problem of when any money is ever returned. Otherwise only Greater Fool, & share price implies many fools have run out of money.

[johnwig] 02/9/2022 13:27

Perhaps you should know that I think of you guys as Ephemeridae, not in the entomological meaning but in the etymological sense.

(Probably, as ever, wasting my time here... And it's certainly not me that is marking down your pallid posts.)

For interest see my post on the EPIC thread.

[chucko1] 02/9/2022 11:25

Jonwig, that's pretty trenchant from your good self!!

Are you invading my territory?

But yes, it does seem to be a tale of loving a share too much in the face of strong, if not overwhelming, evidence.

That said, at the current discount, one may as well hold on for one or two medium term pops which could still be significant.

[spectoacc] 02/9/2022 10:28

Recalling the slew of Board buying in the mid 30p's shortly after Schroders' appointment - where are they now, when it uncrossed at 16.5p this morning?

[spectoacc] 01/9/2022 06:52

Good luck - is the 3rd time it's traded down here (first in March 2020) so could make a case for a triple bottom, but difficult to see catalyst for any recovery when "genuine" PE ITs are trading at large discounts too. Schroders happy to take c.£3m from SUPP indefinitely, & don't seem to be under any pressure to ever return any proceeds from realisations.

The buy back is particularly naff & disappointing.

Assume most shareholders have just given up.

[scrapheap] 26/8/2022 17:13

Bought back 200k today....

[spectoacc] 25/8/2022 11:20

Still buying back the occasional 50k shares too, all at prices higher than the share price is now. If they believed the NAV, the buy backs would be significantly larger IMO.

Atom Bank seems to have gone a bit quiet, but remains the next (last?) hope for a bit of uplift.

[scrapheap] 08/8/2022 07:42

Feared as much in their 6th June results for end March, "We made a partial realisation of our position in Immunocore during the quarter."

Well played lads.

[scrapheap] 05/8/2022 23:18

The supp website provides info on the top 20 holdings as at 11th June. It looks to be in value order with nano first but immunocore is right up there too which is good given that stock is surging... Tho the nav is barely moving.