Smithson: new Fundsmith Investment Trust to launch

[ADrunkenMarcus]

They hold Domino's Pizza Group and Domino's Pizza Enterprises.

I must admit, I'll research the 'top tens' as time goes on and see if there are any that I want to buy directly.

Best wishes

Mark.

[monabri]

The "insiders" at Ansys are not too keen on Ansys

Announced Type Name Entity Role Start End Shares Max Price ($) Value ($)
06. Sep 18 Sell Shane Emswiler Individual 04. Sep 18 04. Sep 18 -3,511 $187.19 $-657,224
24. Aug 18 Sell Alec Gallimore Individual 22. Aug 18 22. Aug 18 -276 $173.76 $-47,958
12. Mar 18 Sell Mark Hindsbo Individual 08. Mar 18 08. Mar 18 -944 $165.90 $-156,610

Rightmove

Announced Type Name Entity Role Start End Shares Max Price (£) Value (£)
16. Aug 18 Sell Robyn Perriss Individual 16. Aug 18 16. Aug 18 -147,980 £4.95 £-732,212

Perriss is the finance director.

Equifax
ROCE 8% .....bit low for TS?


Verisk Analytics

Announced Type Name Entity Role Start End Shares Max Price ($) Value ($)
14. Jun 18 Sell David Wright Individual 14. Jun 18 14. Jun 18 -5,000 $109.48 $-547,400
15. Mar 18 Sell Vincent de McCarthy Individual 15. Mar 18 15. Mar 18 -8,000 $104.25 $-834,000
15. Dec 17 Sell John Lehman Individual 15. Dec 17 15. Dec 17 -10,526 $95.11 $-1,001,128
13. Dec 17 Sell David Wright Individual 13. Dec 17 13. Dec 17 -15,000 $94.60 $-1,419,000

Debt a bit worrying?


Not looked any further.

[simoan]

If I'm being honest with myself this portfolio is not what I expected. None of it is stuff I hold elsewhere.

Me neither. Some of these names are a bit of a shock to me. Rightmove and Dominos? Really? I'd not buy these directly based on fundamentals, and of course, Terry Smith dumped the latter from Fundsmith Equity, so why buy it in Smithson? When I said "interesting" I didn't mean it in a good way and there's a little too much technology exposure for my liking. I will probably lighten my holding as a result.

All the best, Si

[Walrus]

If I'm being honest with myself this portfolio is not what I expected. None of it is stuff I hold elsewhere.

Me neither. Some of these names are a bit of a shock to me. Rightmove and Dominos? Really? I'd not buy these directly based on fundamentals, and of course, Terry Smith dumped the latter from Fundsmith Equity, so why buy it in Smithson? When I said "interesting" I didn't mean it in a good way and there's a little too much technology exposure for my liking. I will probably lighten my holding as a result.

All the best, Si

Yes it looks racier than I was expecting on initial assessment and I agree with you on the IT front.

[Lootman]

If I'm being honest with myself this portfolio is not what I expected. None of it is stuff I hold elsewhere.

Me neither. Some of these names are a bit of a shock to me. Rightmove and Dominos? Really? I'd not buy these directly based on fundamentals, and of course, Terry Smith dumped the latter from Fundsmith Equity, so why buy it in Smithson? When I said "interesting" I didn't mean it in a good way and there's a little too much technology exposure for my liking. I will probably lighten my holding as a result.

Surely the point of buying any of Smith's funds is that you think Smith is a better share picker than you are.

If so then why second guess him? If not then why buy his fund in the first place?

[Dod101]

I agree entirely with Lootman. What an odd reaction to Smithson and in the first couple of months too. I hold Smithson and as I think I advocated early on I would be judging the result on a five year timescale not five weeks! We are buying into the Terry Smith philosophy and need to let that settle down, never mind rush to judgement. When I buy an investment trust (especially a new one) I am buying into the manager as much as anything else and I need to let him get on with his job.

Dod

[Dod101]

None of it is stuff I hold elsewhere.

And that for me, is the whole point.

Dod

[simoan]

If I'm being honest with myself this portfolio is not what I expected. None of it is stuff I hold elsewhere.

Me neither. Some of these names are a bit of a shock to me. Rightmove and Dominos? Really? I'd not buy these directly based on fundamentals, and of course, Terry Smith dumped the latter from Fundsmith Equity, so why buy it in Smithson? When I said "interesting" I didn't mean it in a good way and there's a little too much technology exposure for my liking. I will probably lighten my holding as a result.

Surely the point of buying any of Smith's funds is that you think Smith is a better share picker than you are.

No, that's not the reason I hold. I hold for the general approach of buying companies with moats and brand leadership with global reach, sometimes these are companies listed in countries it is not easy to deal in privately. And when it comes to technology, you're correct, I have no faith in his ability to pick long term winners over my own ability, and it looks like Smithson IT is a closet mid cap technology fund in all but name. Not what I expected at all. And let's not forget, he's not actually running the fund but two of his underlings are, and the jury is out on their ability.

If so then why second guess him? If not then why buy his fund in the first place?

For the obvious reason that it was advertised as a small cap version of Fundsmith, so I guess I was assuming there would be a higher proportion of consumer defensive exposure and definitely not a 40% exposure to technology. I have no faith in people that think they can determine long term technology winners and Terry Smith and his minions are no different.

All the best, Si

[Walrus]

I agree entirely with Lootman. What an odd reaction to Smithson and in the first couple of months too. I hold Smithson and as I think I advocated early on I would be judging the result on a five year timescale not five weeks! We are buying into the Terry Smith philosophy and need to let that settle down, never mind rush to judgement. When I buy an investment trust (especially a new one) I am buying into the manager as much as anything else and I need to let him get on with his job.

Dod

I don't think they are odd responses to be honest and they are not performance based comments on the holdings but merely observations of the portfolio composition. Being surprised it's 50% tech I think is fair comment? Especially bring pretty underwhelmed by the decision to invest in Facebook for the main fund.

I invested on the basis of buying quality companies, not overpaying and do nothing and hoping to get exposure areas I don't currently hold. Also as was previously mentioned we are back in Dominos, which leads me to wonder just how many new ideas there are here, I believe a share that is also currently being shorted? Similarly Rightmove another share I believe that has attracted the interest of the short sellers.

Anyway I am happy to hold he has performed well for me and these companies I am unfamiliar with hopefully have bright futures. But based on this asset mix it is not something I will be looking to significantly invest further in

[Walrus]

Me neither. Some of these names are a bit of a shock to me. Rightmove and Dominos? Really? I'd not buy these directly based on fundamentals, and of course, Terry Smith dumped the latter from Fundsmith Equity, so why buy it in Smithson? When I said "interesting" I didn't mean it in a good way and there's a little too much technology exposure for my liking. I will probably lighten my holding as a result.

Surely the point of buying any of Smith's funds is that you think Smith is a better share picker than you are.

No, that's not the reason I hold. I hold for the general approach of buying companies with moats and brand leadership with global reach, sometimes these are companies listed in countries it is not easy to deal in privately. And when it comes to technology, you're correct, I have no faith in his ability to pick long term winners over my own ability, and it looks like Smithson IT is a closet mid cap technology fund in all but name. Not what I expected at all. And let's not forget, he's not actually running the fund but two of his underlings are, and the jury is out on their ability.

If so then why second guess him? If not then why buy his fund in the first place?

For the obvious reason that it was advertised as a small cap version of Fundsmith, so I guess I was assuming there would be a higher proportion of consumer defensive exposure and definitely not a 40% exposure to technology. I have no faith in people that think they can determine long term technology winners and Terry Smith and his minions are no different.

All the best, Si

I think this is pretty eloquently put, it crossed my post but pretty much sums up my initial thoughts

[RececaDron]

it was advertised as a small cap version of Fundsmith, so I guess I was assuming there would be a higher proportion of consumer defensive exposure and definitely not a 40% exposure to technology.

I invested on the basis of buying quality companies, not overpaying and do nothing and hoping to get exposure areas I don't currently hold. Also as was previously mentioned we are back in Dominos, which leads me to wonder just how many new ideas there are here, I believe a share that is also currently being shorted? Similarly Rightmove another share I believe that has attracted the interest of the short sellers.

Perhaps y'all should have read the Smithson IPO Presentation:

https://smithson.co.uk/docs/default-sou ... ?sfvrsn=16

...PRIOR to investing, then both the shape of the portfolio and its constituent holdings would've come as no surprise whatsoever.

Look at the Smithson investable universe (IU) sector weightings; look at the logos of the IU companies named. The whole thing was laid out for you to see.

All you had to do was read it and decide whether it was for you - before purchasing

[RececaDron]

PS I don't even own it, and yet I'm more familiar with it than the people who subscribed to its IPO.

Whatever happened to DYOR?

[Dod101]

Indeed Rececadron. Besides which, a smaller companies portfolio can be expected to have a few shares which will not work out but by the same token, should have some which do very well indeed. I am looking fro the overall performance not for each individual component to perform well all the time. I have given some money to Smithson. Let them get on with it.

What on earth is the point in entrusting funds to a manager and then start second guessing him a month or so into his tenure?

Dod

[Walrus]

it was advertised as a small cap version of Fundsmith, so I guess I was assuming there would be a higher proportion of consumer defensive exposure and definitely not a 40% exposure to technology.

I invested on the basis of buying quality companies, not overpaying and do nothing and hoping to get exposure areas I don't currently hold. Also as was previously mentioned we are back in Dominos, which leads me to wonder just how many new ideas there are here, I believe a share that is also currently being shorted? Similarly Rightmove another share I believe that has attracted the interest of the short sellers.

Perhaps y'all should have read the Smithson IPO Presentation:

https://smithson.co.uk/docs/default-sou ... ?sfvrsn=16

...PRIOR to investing, then both the shape of the portfolio and its constituent holdings would've come as no surprise whatsoever.

Look at the Smithson investable universe (IU) sector weightings; look at the logos of the IU companies named. The whole thing was laid out for you to see.

All you had to do was read it and decide whether it was for you - before purchasing

Have many friends do we?

[simoan]

Perhaps y'all should have read the Smithson IPO Presentation:

https://smithson.co.uk/docs/default-sou ... ?sfvrsn=16

...PRIOR to investing, then both the shape of the portfolio and its constituent holdings would've come as no surprise whatsoever.

Look at the Smithson investable universe (IU) sector weightings; look at the logos of the IU companies named. The whole thing was laid out for you to see.

All you had to do was read it and decide whether it was for you - before purchasing

********* DELETED ********* how dare you accuse experienced investors of taking part in an IPO without reading the prospectus document. I read every single word of the IPO document, thanks very much, researched all the companies indicated (assuming correctly most would end up in the fund) and considered the level of my investment accordingly. Yes, Domino's included, although I presumed it would not be the UK listed company. Here's the breakdown of the "investable universe" from the prospectus:

Information Technology 30%
Health Care 21%
Industrials 21%
Consumer Discretionary 12%
Consumer Staples 13%
Financials 2%
Materials 1%

and here's what we've started up with:

Information Technology 45.4%
Industrials 21.5%
Healthcare 16.1%
Consumer Discretionary 5.5%
Communication Services 4.9%
Financials 2.2%
Materials 1.9%
Cash	2.6%

So that's no holdings in Consumer Staples, holding(s) in Communication Services that was not even highlighted as investable, and a 50% larger holding in IT than was indicated by the prospectus. If some people are unhappy with that then they should be able to say so, without being chided and ridiculed by lunatics or people beholden to the God-like status of Terry Smith.

FWLIW I don't normally invest in collective investments and the only OEIC I hold is Fundsmith Equity. I only hold two other investment trusts and one of those is Fundsmith Emerging to give exposure to emerging markets. However, there is no doubting it has underperformed badly since launch and the usual Fundsmith approach is not working when applied to less developed equity markets. So unfortunately, whether you like it or not, the jury is out on whether Terry Smith can produce results when he diverges from his circle of competence. Time will tell but in the meantime some of us actually put our money where our mouth's are, rather than just trolling others for entertainment, and I have this morning sold 25% of my Smithson IT holding which relates pretty much to the larger than expected allotment I got in the IPO.

Si

Moderator Message:
text marked **** deleted as unnecessary - dspp

[Dod101]

There is no doubt that IPO's in ITs have not always worked out well. Fidelity and its China Special Situations for one, and Woodford's Patient Capital for another. I am well aware that the cult of a manager can be a dangerous thing which is why I only put a modest five figure sum into Smithson, enough to give me a decent uplift if it does well and no great disaster if it does not.

I assume that the deviation from the prospectus is partially caused by the much bigger than expected subscription proceeds but for goodness's sake, to start criticising a new IT because it does not exactly replicate the prospectus, and worse, to start judging it after a few weeks is just silly in my book (with great respect to the bruised and sensitive egos around here)

Dod

[simoan]

I assume that the deviation from the prospectus is partially caused by the much bigger than expected subscription proceeds but for goodness's sake, to start criticising a new IT because it does not exactly replicate the prospectus, and worse, to start judging it after a few weeks is just silly in my book (with great respect to the bruised and sensitive egos around here)

Dod

If Lemonfool want serious investors to contribute to discussions then they are going to have to tell children to go and play elsewhere. My ego is not bruised or sensitive and I don't understand why a well respected contributor such as yourself should condone trolling posts just because they take the same side of the debate as you. You should know better.

Si

Moderator Message:
This another post where your Intemperate remarks have had to be deleted. Please think before you post. If necessary lie down in a darkened room for a while.

Any more such outbursts and the whole post will be deleted.

TJH

[Dod101]

OK Si, my apologies. These comments of mine were unnecessary. I am though, as must be obvious, quite taken aback by the attitude of a few posters on this thread because I would not even have thought of looking for anything about the new Smithson at least until they publish their first Annual Report. It will take until then for the investments to settle down I expect, and maybe by then we can get an idea of how things are likely to develop.

But really without exaggeration, we will not know for a few years whether this is a good investment or not. I am certainly not intending to try to second guess the managers. I am paying for them to get on with it.

Dod

[Lootman]

I assume that the deviation from the prospectus is partially caused by the much bigger than expected subscription proceeds but for goodness's sake, to start criticising a new IT because it does not exactly replicate the prospectus, and worse, to start judging it after a few weeks is just silly in my book

The central question seems to be why Smith's managers deviated from the planned prospectus weightings (if I understand others correctly; I didn't read it myself. I only invested a small amount and had never invested in a Smith fund before although I like his style).

I might speculate that it was the market dislocations that happened around the time of the offer and launch that impacted such decisions. What we saw in October going into Novermber was a significant fall in tech names (and some other sectors like industrials and energy). Whilst defensive sectors like consumer staples and utilities held up well and even rose in some cases (Verizon, McDonalds).

In such circumstances the managers might have decided to back up the truck for tech names and eschew the non-cyclical names.

[RececaDron]

Some of these names are a bit of a shock to me. Rightmove and Dominos? Really?

Rightmove [1 mention] and Domino's [3 mentions: 1 the US inc, the other 2 ambiguous] were specifically referred to in the IPO Presentation that I linked to above, a document which was available to potential investors prior to them subscribing. It was all laid out clearly in a short 30 page document, with pictures.

And how dare you accuse experienced investors of taking part in an IPO without reading the prospectus document. I read every single word of the IPO document, thanks very much

If this is an apparent appeal to authority re "experienced investors" it carries no weight with me.

Too, you're making things up as I didn't "accuse" anyone of not reading the prospectus. I specifically and solely referred to the Smithson IPO Presentation which, if read, would have lead no one to be greatly surprised over the Smithson portfolio shape or constituent holdings, in the manner that some here appear to be.

Here's the breakdown of the "investable universe" from the prospectus:
..
So that's no holdings in Consumer Staples, holding(s) in Communication Services that was not even highlighted as investable, and a 50% larger holding in IT than was indicated by the prospectus.

The sector weightings of the IU do not imply a model portfolio, such that the actual portfolio would mimic those sector weightings. Therefore, your "50% larger holding in IT than was indicated by the prospectus" comment makes little sense. A 13% presence of Consumer Staples in the IU does not mean the actual portfolio must have Consumer Staples holdings. That is not how an IU works.

The presence of a Communication Services holding when that sector wasn't present in the published IU is the only valid point raised. It's probably something simple, eg. a reclassification, or the IU has already evolved slightly. Why not ask the managers?

The key point here is that if someone believed that the Smithson portfolio would or should approximately mimic the sector weightings of the underlying IU then they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an IU represents.


NB you should direct your complaint about Smilies or post formatting to the board owners as it is they who've made these features available.

Brightens the place up, innit.