Biohope, biased against who or what? Let me assume if I may, you are referring to my bias against those who believe Slater & Gordon is a poor company. Well then yes guilty as charged. From my perspective I could not act differently. My priority is to be confident in a management team if I am not then I move on (made plenty of mistakes I admit), what I don't do is remain invested and then try and find every reason not to be invested. So when I read opinions based as facts, mistruths, one-sided argument, otherwise known as biased, I attempt to provide an alternative argument. And, a personal view but I don't believe those intent in shorting a company have any right to blatantly publish their opinions, opinions that are often circumstantial or worse still blatant lies.
One of my major irks with the investing community, whether professionals or mum & dads, is the I know better than management attitude. Of course not every company's management is top notch, in no walk of life is every member of the universe top notch. However, some preach what management have done wrong or their negligence when I suspect in many instance the preachers themselves have never managed a milk bar let alone a $1bn public company. By all means it's fine not to feel overly confident in managements ability but then move on don't relentlessly preach why they are useless and find every tedious little grey area to substantiate a 'told you so' position.
Yes, I do have an understanding of the UK insurance market, a significant understanding as it happens with many years working in various parts of the market including serving and responding to claims management company's. Not Quindell if the thought crosses your mind. That is largely irrelevant though it only serves to point out I do have a natural interest beyond holding SGH shares. I am also well aware of varied opinions on the nature of its business; the market it operates in is open to criticism, it always has. That is to be expected, if people/companies can get away without expensive litigation or remedies for damages they are happy, those that bring rights to the attention of the public are a pain in the backside - ambulance chasers. So depending on who you mix with, the type of response you get to the Slaters of this world is likely to be poor. Unless they are fighting for your corner in which case they are champions. At one time I used to despise CMC too, when I was charged with minimising claims costs. Since moving on I have matured to accept it is not the legal fraternity that are the bad guys, the real bad guys are actuaries and underwriters who fail to price and underwrite risks appropriately - then when claims blow out it is not their fault it is the bad folk stirring up the public to claim for damages they wouldn't otherwise understand or bother looking into. Easy to forget the law doesn't randomly side with the public, it applies precedent and common law principles in the law of tort. A very cold hard look at the facts not an emotional aghhhh Johnny's nice give him heaps at the expensive of that rogue insurance company.
Regarding retention of staff. Some may say the people make the company. I would revise that to say management set the culture which makes the company through its people. In plain English just because parts of Quindell were suffering from executive management neglect it doesn't mean those at the coal face are bad people. I've seen a few times over the years where a business can turn around remarkably with just a few key changes in management, a smile, a consistent message and focus on values that eventually change culture. I wouldn't right off Slaters simply because they bought files, infrastructure and office space (almost lock stock and barrel). Most importantly they have brought a vision to ex-Quindell people that will spark renewed enthusiasm.
That'll do rambling on about the important stuff. Now the fun irrelevant bit. Share prices. It doesn't matter what I say about share price not reflecting a company's worth, it is what it is. But there is something called a value play, we've all heard about it, a company that is profitable has a long runway ahead of it and pays dividends yet is being marked down to way below average market metrics. Ring a bell. Of course it does you have bought some of SGH yourself.
I'm sure different funds will view this in many different ways. Some will see it as an unbelievable opportunity to accumulate at a bargain price. Some will be distressed because it has made a dent in their portfolio. Some will have managed their risk with derivatives. Some will have abandoned ship. Some will have greatly reduced on the way down to top back up on the way up. If I hear any say sack the management based simply on the share price then I know those are people I don't need to listen too. If I hear sack the management based on guidance missed by a big margin with no mitigating reason then I won't hear it because I will already be gone.
Good luck and I'm happy to have a rationale debate. Despite my responses to Grants posts I do respect his arguments even if I see things a little differently.
Expand
