The Lemon Fool

An interesting note from Hargreaves Lansdown on their Wealth 50
https://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/chan ... rite-funds
They intend removing Lindsell Train funds from the list - not because they are underperforming, but because these funds contain a substantial amount of Hargreaves Lansdown shares, and they think that this may be thought to compromise HL's decision to include them in the Wealth 50 list.

Playing it safe it would seem, but not surprising in the circumstances.

I notice there was no mention of whether the fees for these funds would be affected by this!

I wonder what caused this? The regulator leaning on them? If so they ought to ban these lists altogether, they cannot be recommendations because they are not allowed to recommend so they are pretty useless except to help boost HL's sales.

The difference between 'we recommend you take a look at this' and 'we recommend these funds as good buys for your ISA' will be lost on most of their clients I would have thought.

Dod

Well this will give Terry Smith something extra to moan about if Fundsmith does not replace the global one in the 50. He sure isn't going to give them a discount.

HL has removed top-performing funds in the past for more prosaic reasons, when fund managers request they cease to promote a fund. From memory I think this happened with some of the high-performing First State funds. But that's going back a few years.

Hargreaves Lansdown has just removed Nick Train’s two blockbuster funds from its Wealth 50.

The reason that both have been removed from the Wealth 50 comes down to conflicts of interest. You see, Train is a big fan of Hargreaves Lansdown shares and the stock is held – with large weightings – in both of his equity funds. He has actually been boosting his stake in the stock this week as well. Just last night, Hargreaves announced that Lindsell Train has boosted its stake in the company from 11% to 12%.

I would agree a prudent decision, in the light of recent events with Woodfords funds.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hargr ... 37525.html

Is there some reason why one would buy something that is trading at 85% higher than the underlying assets...why not just go out and buy Unilever, Relx, LSE (etc.) shares directly?


(p.s posted here..following the 'redirect' in the LTI post).

monabri wrote:Is there some reason why one would buy something that is trading at 85% higher than the underlying assets...why not just go out and buy Unilever, Relx, LSE (etc.) shares directly?

The investment trust's premium effectively represents the market's valuation of its share of the unquoted Lindsall Train fund management company.

I haven't a clue as to what it's worth. I avoid this by holding Finsbury Growth and Income IT instead. Managed by Nick Train, very similar portfolio but no management company shares IIRC.

monabri wrote:Is there some reason why one would buy something that is trading at 85% higher than the underlying assets...why not just go out and buy Unilever, Relx, LSE (etc.) shares directly?

(p.s posted here..following the 'redirect' in the LTI post).

The reason for the premium has been discussed before on previous topics here. LTI owns a significant stake in its parent fund management company, which of course has been very successful. It is privately held and so you can't invest in it any other way. So buying the other constituent listed shares that LTI holds won't get you there.

To know whether it is really a 85% premium or not, you'd have to come up with a fair valuation for that business, and the implication is that the book value that is being used to compute the NAV is a gross understatement.

In my case, I didn't buy LTI at a 85% premium. It was a decade or so ago and as best I recall it was on a small premium at the time. You could ask me why I continue to hold at a 85% premium. My answer would be that LTI has been a ten-bagger for me over the last decade, and it has been at a significant premium pretty much the entire time.

Fantastic monthly report from Nick Train, which provides clarification of recent events.

https://www.lindselltrain.com/~/media/Files/L/Lindsell-Train-V2/reports/ltglobal-equity-fund/2019/LTGEF_MR_2019-06.pdf

monabri wrote:Is there some reason why one would buy something that is trading at 85% higher than the underlying assets...why not just go out and buy Unilever, Relx, LSE (etc.) shares directly?
(p.s posted here..following the 'redirect' in the LTI post).

Just to clarify my original posting - the HL Wealth 50 is a list of funds - not Investment Trusts. The funds which will be removed are the Lindsell Train Global Equity and the Lindsell Train UK Equity.

scotia wrote:- the HL Wealth 50 is a list of funds - not Investment Trusts. T

With HL taking a cut as a percent of value on funds but not ITs, doesn't that tell you what you want to know about bias?

Templeton wrote:Fantastic monthly report from Nick Train, which provides clarification of recent events.

https://www.lindselltrain.com/~/media/Files/L/Lindsell-Train-V2/reports/ltglobal-equity-fund/2019/LTGEF_MR_2019-06.pdf

As usual Nick Train writes a very clear statement of his views. very good.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:

Templeton wrote:Fantastic monthly report from Nick Train, which provides clarification of recent events.

https://www.lindselltrain.com/~/media/Files/L/Lindsell-Train-V2/reports/ltglobal-equity-fund/2019/LTGEF_MR_2019-06.pdf

As usual Nick Train writes a very clear statement of his views. very good.

Dod

And the annual fee on this one fund has very generously been reduced from £96m to £92m.

Benchmarked to an index but without disclosing its active share the level of risk is hard to quantify.

Anyone piling in a "£15" per share?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/inves ... iance.html




(I'd be filling my boots at that price).

monabri wrote:Anyone piling in a "£15" per share?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/inves ... iance.html




(I'd be filling my boots at that price).

Except that presumably your boots are already full from when it was at that price just three months ago, no? http://mediacharting.digitallook.com/cg ... dicator_3=

The longer term chart is, well, interesting ... http://mediacharting.digitallook.com/cg ... dicator_3=

mc2fool wrote:Except that presumably your boots are already full from when it was at that price just three months ago, no?

That fell flat!

(Flatter than the 99% + drop in LTI share price in the article )

mc2fool wrote:

monabri wrote:Anyone piling in a "£15" per share?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/inves ... iance.html




(I'd be filling my boots at that price).

Except that presumably your boots are already full from when it was at that price just three months ago, no? http://mediacharting.digitallook.com/cg ... dicator_3=

The longer term chart is, well, interesting ... http://mediacharting.digitallook.com/cg ... dicator_3=

That chart looks like bitcoin's just before the bubble burst last year!!

Cheers, OLTB.

Lootman wrote:To know whether it is really a 85% premium or not, you'd have to come up with a fair valuation for that business, and the implication is that the book value that is being used to compute the NAV is a gross understatement.

In my case, I didn't buy LTI at a 85% premium. It was a decade or so ago and as best I recall it was on a small premium at the time. You could ask me why I continue to hold at a 85% premium. My answer would be that LTI has been a ten-bagger for me over the last decade, and it has been at a significant premium pretty much the entire time.

Is LTI now a sufficiently better buy at 26% premium and a price of £1,350 ?

https://www.theaic.co.uk/companydata/BWSAG

tramrider wrote:

Lootman wrote:To know whether it is really a 85% premium or not, you'd have to come up with a fair valuation for that business, and the implication is that the book value that is being used to compute the NAV is a gross understatement.

In my case, I didn't buy LTI at a 85% premium. It was a decade or so ago and as best I recall it was on a small premium at the time. You could ask me why I continue to hold at a 85% premium. My answer would be that LTI has been a ten-bagger for me over the last decade, and it has been at a significant premium pretty much the entire time.

Is LTI now a sufficiently better buy at 26% premium and a price of £1,350 ?

Obviously. I bought at around £200, but this is the best entry point we have seen since early 2019.

Might be a good opportuity to do a bed-and-ISA without incurring too much CGT.