We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust Plc | SMT | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.40 | 1.26% | 837.60 | 08:43:48 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 834.20 | 834.20 | 841.40 | 827.20 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| EQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 27/3/2024 09:48 by septblues If Alliance is only tracking its index it might as well become an ETF and release cost savings to investorsElliott technology fund has only delivered c 5% pa growth long term. Jesse Cohn an Elliott senior technology investor's background appears to be in tech companies past their sell by dates. Typical approach of selling bits, use company cash to buy back shares (a strategy which can be theoretically challenged on investment terms), cost cutting and so on. Florida investors can be like the Glazers at Man Utd, take the cash and let the asset wither. SMT is a closed end company. all actions should be in the interest of the company and not a minority shareholder. |
Posted at 25/3/2024 15:58 by jeffian I was already a holder but I must admit I bought some more purely on the unscientific reasoning that an "activist investor" is likely to cause some activity and, whilst their involvement may not directly cause a strong upward movement, it is unlikely to be down! |
Posted at 24/3/2024 09:00 by hazl Ah a bit in the Sunday Times about Elliot and Scottish Mortgage Trust.Even they have used the word 'feared'. I believe that SMT's stance was that they kept Nvidia and the high flying companies like it, because they couldn't see a better use for their cash, should they sell some. Again, some say that if they continue ro be lieve in Nvidia going forward....and I support in theory, some of Nvidia's own mantra , to some extent, in that they are just at the start of this game changer, as an industry, they are in. Perhaps SMT fear they might not be able to buy back cheaper in the future,as it goes from strength to strength? Whilst some are predicting an eventual drop in the share price,who knows? Some of the biggest names in the tech have just kept going up. If it is carried out, will the cash lose value, as cash always does, if they cannot see anything better to invest in, as I seem to remember them claiming? I could be wrong on that...I would have to see if those were just my thoughts. Finally Space X! I do hope they don't sell too much of that! Is it just another way of attacking Musk? Whatever, I m just a small person in the big scheme of these things. I have admired SMT's choices of shares over the years, their advisors have been spot on. The only reason I haven't jumped in for more recently, is because of the general market climate. Elliot might know what they're doing but as I say I fear short termism and as a major shareholder they can over ride some of SMT's managements decisions....which I personally think is a shame. I see space as a growing area, for investors. IMO |
Posted at 22/3/2024 12:50 by septblues There is no evidence that Elliott are technology investors or growth investors. They are value investors. Alliance is a value, income and general growth trust. It's a very different trust from SMT. Other than cutting costs (EU regulations distorted that), eliminating investments, there's no evidence that they are good at predicting the future. And if they want SMT to jump on to the AI theme, one can argue that the AI investment train has left the station (for now). Elliott are the wrong kind of investor for SMT. Active investor involvement in Witan or F&C was largely ineffective from an investment basis where allocation to sector specialists was historical and picked the wrong sectors and wrong specialists. |
Posted at 15/3/2024 07:48 by takeiteasy "In a volatile period for growth investment, we own a portfolio of established companies achieving rapid expansion, propelled by enduring structural trends. Advances in foundational technologies are unlocking exciting new products, services, and business models. These well-funded public and private companies are shaping the future of the economy. The stock market has yet to fully recognise their progressQuestion: why is the stock market not recognising their potential is the 64K dollar question - is this specific to this IT or a wider market issue. This appears to have done well over the long term and less so over short term - a smaller investor viewpoint link fwiw etc (dyor etc) hxxps://www.msn.com/ |
Posted at 16/2/2024 12:02 by lord loads of lolly steeplejack - re: investment timeframes, I'd argue you're best off heeding whatever the fund managers suggest (providing they don't keep changing their tune).As you say, there are no hard & fast rules. But SMT has consistently marketed this fund as a 5 year+ hold. So why ignore this in favour of your own 2 year view? If investors might need some/all of their capital back in less than 5 years, then clearly SMT isn't really suitable for them. But that doesn't make the consistenly stated 5 year timeframe any less valid. |
Posted at 13/11/2023 06:25 by takeiteasy Hazl,I simply do not get why you ignore the risk/return dimension if you want to provide the fullest picture. Go on trustnet and google 5 year return and volatility for SMT vs close tech rival global fund (I won't mention the name as there are a number so the specific IT does not matter tbh) and you will find the following. SMT has pretty much exactly the same volatiity as some of the other high risk tech funds but has exactly in some cases half the 5 year returns. To compete for the attention of professional investors (ignore retail clients for now), SMT needs either to find investments that provide an overall better return or reduce the volatility in the overall portfolio with some better risk/reward options. This is the modern day discipline that professional investors running portfolios against risk models will apply. At the moment, SMT needs to do more imvho in this regard to get the risk/reward balance right. dyor etc |
Posted at 12/11/2023 19:02 by hazl BG Says similar things about risk.'The Trust is suitable for all investors seeking a fund that aims to deliver capital growth over a long-term investment horizon. The investor should be prepared to bear losses. The Trust is aimed at mass market distribution. The Trust may not be suitable for investors who are concerned about short-term volatility and performance, who are seeking a regular source of income or who may be investing for less than 5 years. The Trust does not offer capital protection'. They are indeed comparable in my opinion. I see that SMT upped it's dividend in recent times. |
Posted at 12/11/2023 18:27 by takeiteasy Hazl,You believe in the strategy and no one is saying that they disagree with you in wanting to follow the approach for the reasons you state. Be as excited and optimistic as you wish. The position over portfolio changes is much more nuanced than you explain it. The idea of successful portfolio management is to take profits on your winners and cut your big losses. The reason everyone bangs on about Moderna is that it was a screaming sell as soon as pandemic cleared up as demand would fall off a cliff - this was at anywhere between $200-$400 a share - to hang on as the top holding raises questions over risk management absolutely. Selling illumina now at close to a possible bottom (after many many years of holding) is not great either to me - the issues have been known of for years and the managers kept hanging on in faith that things would turn around. I fully accept that this is how they run the business to give such a sense of slack to firms with a long term view to try to ride out the ups and downs and be long term investors. I think this approach works well for the types of holdings we both agree are great like Nvidia , Amazon, Meta and ASML but I now absolutely query the LTBH approach for ultra high risk small cap biotech and tech investments. I am not asking you to agree at all as you are a supporter, but I hope the managers continue to make clear the implications of their approach for all their investors. This is a question tbh...I will keep watching their comments and make my own assessments.... |
Posted at 05/8/2023 02:01 by elbrus55 Most trades in liquid stocks eg FTSE100 are by institutional investors, many using automated trading systems. The number of share sold versus bought EXACTLY matches, by definition. They choose their own prices in their orders. If it is outside the bid ask spread it won't trade through immediately but may do so later. Even that only works for orders of modest size. If you are trading a million shares at a time you won't usually be able to trade in full immediately at the quoted prices - need to wait for a matched opposite order. This mechanism determines the so called 'share price'. Actually there are just a series of trades at many different prices and lots of as yet unfilled orders at other different prices. Your way of describing it is a simplification of something more complicated. Not sure it is all that helpful. More relevant for illiquid shares e.g. AIM market.Retail investors trading through market makers have limited influence on the share price. ( Perhaps a little bit more than usual with SMT as it has quite a large retail investor base)You could google "London Stock Exchange guide for private investors" for some more detail. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
