I think your post is very reasonable. GROW is not an investment trust and therefore I don’t view its value equal the sum total of the valuations of the companies it has in its portfolio. Thus, the term ‘discount’ used by the poster you are responding** to is an inappropriate term here.
In fact the venture capital model assumes most of its investments don’t pull through. The hope is that just a few of the investments make so much of a difference that they ‘wipe out’, and then some more, the losses of the others.
Molten shares rallied more than 6%, or 14p, to 240p yesterday after the company said in a full-year trading update that its total portfolio value at 31 March was expected to have been £1.377bn, up from £1.299bn a year ago.
However, the company guided investors to expect net asset value (NAV) excluding debt of 661p per share, a 15.2% decline over the year and a 10.1% drop in the second half.
This leaves the shares 64% below NAV, the widest discount among listed growth capital funds where the average discount is currently 38%.
What are you suggesting about the good and honest profession that is accounting!??!
But I am having the same thoughts as you though but with regards to my holdings in HydrogenOne Capital Fund HGEN which is also heavily down against its NAV.
These sorts of esoteric trusts are rarely a good idea.
I try to remind myself of this every time I get a bright idea about investing in narrow trusts covering helium, hydrogen, song royalties, forests and so on.
I’m still holding a bunch of shares in this, hopeful that the NAV discount makes them attractive to a bigger fish.
Measuring NAV of private illiquid startups is a black box. For example, in their latest report, Molten value their stake in Graphcore at £21M, whereas Sequoia completely wrote off their stake in Graphcore in 2023.