The Value Perspective Podcast – at the London Value Investor Conference ‘25
Authors
Hi everyone and welcome to The Value Perspective Podcast. This week, Juan, co-fund manager on the Schroders emerging markets value strategy, and Andy, an investment director at Schroders, continue their conference tour with a visit to the 2025 London Value Investor Conference or ‘LVIC’. There, once again, they had the chance to speak with some of the sharpest minds in the investment world – and a big thank you, as always, to Robert Hunter for bringing together this incredible event and for giving us the opportunity to capture the energy and insights from the day. This time, we are joined by a standout line-up, including Simon Adler, the new head of the Schroders Value Team, Alissa Corcoran of Kopernik Global Investors, Daniel O’Keefe of Artisan Partners, Alasdair McKinnon of Sgurr Ventures, Freddie Lait of Latitude Investment Management, Alex Roepers of Atlantic Investment Management and Matt Ennion of Quilter Cheviot. We also hear from David Shapiro of Sustainable Growth Advisers, Caroline Mills of Redington, Charles Heenan of Kennox Asset Management, Andrew Hollingworth of Holland Advisors, Scott Gibson of SJP, Jonathan Boyar of Boyar Value Group and Mark Boulton of Pictet Asset Management – with each guest offering a unique perspective on the state of markets, long-term value and where opportunities may lie. Enjoy!
JTR: Simon Adler, welcome to The Value Perspective Podcast. We are here at the 2025 London Value Investor Conference, where you have just finished your presentation – in the first slot. How was that?
SA: Thank you, Juan. Well, we took quite a big risk. Traditionally, people do a stock pick and spend the whole session talking about that. We did a stock pick as well – but it was one from four years ago. We didn’t tell people it was from four years ago, we went through why we bought it and then we said, Well, for the first time ever at this conference, you are going to be able to see how a stock pick goes. And it was a disaster. It went down 75% – extremely disappointing, our third worst-ever stock – but then we said, What lessons can we learn from that? And then I highlighted it’s much better to learn lessons from a big sample size of stock.
We have recorded everything we have done for more than a decade. We save our models, we save our notes, we save our valuation, we save our risk scores – it is all saved. So, with the help of our data scientist Jon Yow and the group within our team, we are able to assess what we are truly good at and truly bad at and how we’re doing across a big sample size, using big data. That is a colossal advantage for us as a team – we don’t think anyone else has that. Then I talked about what we have learned and what tools we have built to help us get better. So quite a different presentation to normal – it risked being quite unpopular – but we are contrarians and that’s what it’s about. So hopefully it was interesting for people and showed things in a different light.
JTR: You kept the name of the company hidden. Why was that?
SA: Because I didn’t want the focus to be on the individual company. I wanted the focus to be on learning lessons with big data – learning lessons across a big sample size – not, Oh yes, well, I knew that company and here’s the thing that’s wrong with it. This is a company that went wrong. I am sure we missed things in our analysis – we have assessed that and we have tried to get better on that – but I didn’t want the focus to be on that specific company. We are being open enough to talk about a company that has been a disaster – and we have been learning lessons across big sample sizes – and I wanted that to be the focus.
JTR: We are at a value conference and you are a value investor – how is value investing looking over the next few months or years? Is it dead! What do you think?
SA: Over the next few months, I haven’t got a clue! But, over the next few years, I think the outlook is looking pretty positive. If you look at the cheapest part of the market, it is on a Shiller P/E ratio of below 10x – that, statistically, should give very attractive returns going forward. If you look at the spread in valuations between value and growth, that is more extreme today than the peak of the dotcom boom. Three years on from the peak of the dotcom boom, the MSCI World index was down 45% and value was up.
Five years on, the MSCI World index was still down more than 10% and value was up over 100%. We are starting from a more extreme starting point than that today – and not only have we got that, we then look at our portfolio, which looks very cheap and nicely diversified. So I have no idea about the next few months but – on a five-year view, medium-term view, any long-term view – we should be able to deliver very attractive returns from deep-value portfolios today. And they could be supercharged in terms of relative returns, given how the prospects for the overall market look – which is quite poor, given starting valuations.
JTR: Has anything that has happened as a result of the declaration of tariff trade wars by the Trump presidency changed your view on the investment landscape?
SA: The investment landscape is always changing. It is always evolving. And yes, this is a radical change in geopolitics and trading patterns around the world. But the job of the value investor is to look dispassionately at the opportunities we are being offered and to look dispassionately at our existing portfolio, given the changes in environment and macro outlook. There are always differences ahead and we always ask, How would this stock survive a tough macro outlook? We don’t know what or when that will be but we think it will be ahead at some point. So, with our existing portfolio, we dispassionately assess whether it can survive in this period – and we think it can. And then we look at the opportunity set – again dispassionately – and ask, Is there a massive margin of safety? Are we being compensated for the risks we are having to take here? If we are not, we say no. If we are, we keep doing more and more work – and, if we get confident, we will add things to the portfolio. So we take a long-term view and we think we benefit from that long-term view.
JTR: That’s great. Simon, enjoy the rest of the day.
SA: Thank you very much, Juan – and you.
“Now is the most important time to be in value. It works most at inflection points” – Alissa Corcoran
AW: Alissa Corcoran of Kopernik Global Investors, we are at the London Value Investor Conference. It is a pleasure to have you on the podcast. You have just come off-stage. How was that for you?
AC: It was great. Great audience and very good speakers – so happy to be here.
AW: I loved your presentation. It is definitely the first time I have ever heard AC/DC on an investment stage, which was fantastic! Why did you open your presentation with their song ‘Back in black’?
AC: I mean, it’s a tribute to Bon Scott, who passed away shortly after the band started and was getting going. And it was really a celebration – a celebration of his life – and a tribute to him and his immortality. And also to the immortality of value investing – because I think there are a lot of people who question value investing and whether or not it still works. Many have given up on value investing, but we think now is the most important time to be a value investor. I mean, value investing works most at inflection points.
AW: Absolutely. As I was listening to your presentation, there was a quote – hopefully I wrote it down correctly – which I think is a really good segue. You said value investors have been ‘consigned to a life of futility and wasted effort’ – particularly for maybe the last decade …
AC: Yes – the more work you did, the worse your performance was!
AW: So why do you think that won’t be the case for the decade to come?
AC: I mean, if you look at history, the winners of the previous 10 or 20 years are not the winners of the next 10 or 20 years – and there are lots of examples of that throughout history. So, while momentum markets are very difficult for value investors, eventually the market will break. And we are at extremes now – we’re at extreme valuations, we’re at extreme narrowness – you know, it won’t take a lot to disrupt this market. We saw how quickly market sentiment changed when the tariffs were first announced on ‘Liberation Day’. Who knows what it’s going to be but you can imagine, over the next 10 years, something unexpected could happen.
AW: I know macro is not something you look at too much but you did mention inflation. How important is the return of inflation to seeing a rerating of some of these value companies?
AC: We own a lot of commodity companies – so that would help – but it’s not necessary. But we also think it’s just a reality. I mean, when you increase the monetary base by, you know, 50%, it’s hard to have strong conviction that inflation is going to come roaring back. But when you increase the monetary base by a lot –by multiples, by 600%! – I mean, then you are likely to see some inflation coming through, certainly.
AW: At these conferences, people often talk about developed-market stocks so it was refreshing to hear you mention some EM stocks today. Where in particular are you seeing opportunities today?
AC: Actually, the best opportunities are in what the MSCI classifies as an emerging market but we don’t actually think of as one, which is South Korea. That is 18% of our portfolio now. And these stocks have been so beaten up, many of them are trading at half of book value, a third of book value, single-digit earnings – I mean, really incredible valuations. Otherwise, I mean, we are seeing it in Brazil, in Kazakhstan, in Indonesia, in China – you name it – where we probably have some exposure.
AW: Would you link that specifically to the sort of changes we saw in Japan, in terms of raising governance standards?
AC: We have owned South Korea for a long time – since before any of the ‘Value-Up’ stuff was happening. Certainly, that would help, though – and it has been interesting. I mean, we were in South Korea last year and it is remarkable how competitive they are with the Japanese! So, once the Japanese do something, it is interesting to see the Koreans now changing their tune a little bit. And we are seeing that with some of the companies. I mean, it’s glacial – the change is very slow – but we are seeing some positive changes.
AW: Fantastic. And remind me how you finished your presentation? It was something about ‘hoping the fear of missing out …’
AC: ‘Hoping the fear of missing out will be replaced by the fear of loss.’
AW: Well, let’s hope that is the case. Thank you very much for coming on the podcast.
“The idea of net zero has always been entirely unsupportable analytically” – Daniel O’Keefe
AW: Daniel O’Keefe of Artisan Partners, you’ve just come off-stage at the London Value Investor Conference – how was the experience for you?
DO: Fun – as always. This is my third time speaking at the London Value Investor Conference – I was here for the first one – so it’s always good to be back.
AW: Excellent. Well, we are very glad to have you back. Tell me a little about the ‘Arthur Miller moment’ – and particularly how that relates to net zero today.
DO: Well, Arthur Miller was a great American playwright and essayist. He wrote in the United States in the 50s and 60s and he wrote a great essay for New York magazine in 1974 about the post-war era – and a great quote from that was ‘An era can be said to end when its basic illusions are exhausted’. And I think it’s a great quote to think about this net zero moment that we’ve been steeped in, culturally and economically, for the last several years, which seems to be breathing its last breath. It is a good encapsulation of the end of that era as well – which was a good segue into my stock pitch. That was Shell, which of course is a fossil-fuel company that many may have believed – mistakenly, if they believed net zero was actually going to happen – would not exist today, or perhaps in five or 10 years’ time. I believe that thought is now probably no longer supportable.
AW: It is sometimes amazing how quickly the narrative does change in the market. Has it surprised you how quickly the ‘net zero illusion’, as you put it on stage, has come undone – certainly in the US?
DO: No, it doesn’t surprise me at all – in fact, I’m surprised it persisted as long as it did. I don’t want to speak to global warming, I don’t want to speak to anyone’s values, I don’t want to speak to anyone’s ideals – but, from a purely economic standpoint, the idea of net zero has always been entirely unsupportable analytically. In other words, a close scrutiny of energy systems would lead one to immediately conclude that – at least with current technology – net zero is just not possible. So I’m actually surprised it persisted as long as it did.
AW: Just to roll up on that thesis, do you have any views on the role that nuclear could play?
DO: Well, if people really did want to eliminate CO2 emissions from the energy system – or reduce them significantly – the only way to do it, while maintaining a viable energy system, is with nuclear energy.
AW: And just to bring it back a little to talk about markets, how are you finding the markets today, in terms of how easy is it to find new ideas in comparison to potentially other points in your career?
DO: Well, I would say it is normal. It’s a normal environment – it’s neither phenomenal nor terrible. You know, the phenomenal moments come along rarely – so we must exist in the more normal moments. So I think this is probably a more normal moment.
AW: Fantastic. Finally, before I let you go, how do you think the next five years or so might pan out for value investors? I am sure lots of presentations today will touch on how tough the last decade has been but do you have any thoughts or feelings about how the next five to 10 years might be?
DO: I have nothing intelligent to say on that! I could speak for many minutes, theorising and speculating, and it would amount to nothing more than idle talk over a cocktail!
AW: I absolutely love that honest answer. Daniel O’Keefe, thank you very much.
“When everyone is sure about something – well, that is when changes happen” – Alasdair McKinnon
JTR: Alasdair McKinnon of Sgurr Ventures, welcome to The Value Perspective Podcast. How are you today?
AM: I’m very well, thank you. It’s a lovely day in London and I’m always delighted to be at the Value Investor Conference!
JTR: It is quite early in the day – we are doing this clip during the first coffee break. – but what has caught your attention so far?
AM: You know, there has been loads that has caught my attention. The thing that has really interested me, though, is how excited people are – not just the presenters, but the audience as well – about the prospects for value investing. Why is that? Well, I guess the world has changed in, well, maybe the last four years or so. We have seen a situation where free money has ended – OK, interest rates are coming down a bit from where they’ve been, but the world of zero interest rates has gone. We’re also moving on from a world of investors, excluding particular assets for ESG reasons – for environmental, social and governance reasons – which is seeing some of the presenters finding really exciting opportunities as well. So I think that has been the key takeaway from the day – some real opportunities out there that people are seeing.
JTR: I was in some of the presentations this morning, making the case for value investing outside of the traditional ‘US exceptionalism’, with some people pitching the idea of emerging markets. Do you find those pockets of value interesting yourself?
AM: I do because, at the end of the day – from my perspective, at least – the US has become such a huge market in the global context. Now, there’s obviously very good reasons for that but, if I look back over my investment career, what I have seen is big cycles – in so much as, 30 years ago, the US became this place everyone had to invest, which culminated in the dotcom bubble in 2000. And then, for the next decade, the US went absolutely nowhere as a market. And the emerging markets did well, Europe did well, the UK did well and all sorts of other asset classes did well – all, really, at the expense of the US. And, I wonder, does just the mathematics of weightings mean we could be in for another decade of surprise? Because I can assure you, when I look back in time to 2010, when I did have conversations with other investors, it was always, Oh, emerging markets are going to do well forever and the US is finished! Of course, the exact opposite happened. That tends to be the way it works in markets: when everyone is sure about something – when everyone wants to buy the Magnificent Seven, say – well, that’s when changes happen. I wonder if that has already started.
JTR: A question we have been asking guests on this podcast over the last 18 months or so is around the whole active-passive debate – in your opinion, is active losing the battle against passive?
AM: Well, in some ways, the battle has already happened and passive has, in many ways, won because, at the end of the day, there have probably been too many active managers trying to copy an index and do closet-tracking – that is, trying to replicate the index and take very small bets at the edges. But of course, that doesn’t work, because they are not really putting their conviction on the line and the costs of active management are higher than passive. So the net result is active managers lose compared to passive. Where active managers can survive – and thrive – is by being genuinely different. And I suppose value investors take a very different view – they actually look at valuations, they look at prospects, they don’t just jump on momentum. That is where a human thinker can add value, compared to perhaps an AI model, which will look backwards, generally speaking, and try and apply its conclusions going forward. So the battle has maybe already happened and we are now, perhaps, in the era of active people who look at the fundamentals doing very well.
JTR: Alasdair, thank you very much for your time. Enjoy the rest of your day.
“It is really important that, within value, you are still buying great businesses” – Freddie Lait
JTR: Freddie Lait of Latitude Investment Management, welcome to The Value Perspective Podcast. We are recording this at the London Value Investor Conference and you have just finished your session on-stage. How are you enjoying the day?
FL: Thank you very much for having me. I’m having a great day – and if I’m honest, as someone who doesn’t love speaking on stage, I am having a better day now I’ve finished my presentation!
JTR: Well, you did extremely well. For those who may not have come across Latitude before, could you give a brief summary of the business?
FL: Very quick summary. We started 10 years ago. We are a partner-owned investment management firm in London. We manage a very long-term global equity strategy, which we were talking about today, focused around value and growth combined, really, but with valuation as one of the key considerations.
JTR: How are you seeing the value landscape at the moment? We did an episode of this podcast from the New York Value Investor Conference – so before the Trump administration announced its tariffs – and people in the value scene were very excited about the future. Has that changed for you at all?
FL: Potentially. I think I am more nervous about the overvaluation than necessarily believing the undervaluation will close with that – I think it is truly dangerous to call the timing on that. And, as I said in my presentation, when we started the business, the core axiom of our investment philosophy was trying to build a value process that does not rely on other people – you can’t invest needing the rerating to happen. So, if you can find businesses that are growing at 10%, 12%, 15%, 20% and trading at what you think is a margin of safety, then you don’t need to be able to answer that question – and so I can’t! I’m hopeful – because, of course, you make stronger returns if you get that margin of safety closing too – but I think it is really important that, within value, you’re still buying great businesses.
JTR: You guys are global managers. For compliance reasons, I cannot ask for specific names but I can ask you where in the world you are seeing the best value opportunities or the best mis-pricings?
FL: For the last 10 years, we have been around 50% to 65% invested in America. And we broadly remain there – you know, we’ve seen opportunities outside of it. I should say our turnover is around 10% a year – so we normally own things for 10 years – so it doesn’t change very rapidly. I do believe capital will flow out of America and rebalance around the world but that doesn’t stop there being incredible businesses there. We run a 22-stock portfolio so can we find 10 or 12 or 14 great American businesses that are inexpensive? Probably. So it is all relative to us. We have seen value external to the US for the last five or six years – so we have been positioned for that with about 40% or 50% of the fund – but we are still big believers in America too.
JTR: When you screen the market, do you have a preference for a specific market-capitalisation range?
FL: We only invest in large-cap stocks – although a lot of people will tell me, this is now a ‘Smid-cap’ level!
JTR: So how do you define a large-cap stock?
FL: We look at anything bigger than $10bn in market cap. The average is closer to $80bn or $100bn – so we are not overly skewed to that bottom end – but we like the chance to be able to look. And it’s a universe of around 1,300 stocks – in the developed market, because we don’t do emerging-market investing.
JTR: Do you invest across all sectors? Or do you have a preference for some or do you avoid some?
FL: At first principles, we are very open-minded – we will always look. We run a very rigorous screening process – and, I think, a differentiated screening process to most value managers, because we don’t use value at all. When we look at a business, we are looking for durability and quality but then we wait patiently for value to come our way – if it ever does. So we don’t exclude whole sectors as a matter of course – but very few cyclical stocks get through. As an example – and I won’t mention the name for compliance reasons – only one airline around the world came through our filtering process of being even interesting. And we do own it now. Similarly, about seven banks globally made it through our screening – out of a universe of 100 – so we are quite exclusive within those sectors that generally people fully exclude. Still, you can be really rewarded for paying close attention to every opportunity in case there is a ‘ruby in the rubble’ of those difficult sectors.
JTR: Freddie, a question we have been asking guests on this podcast over the last 18 months or so is whether, in your opinion, active is losing the battle against passive?
FL: I think it is demonstrable that active is losing the battle against passive. I mean, the flows have been extraordinary – one-way traffic for as long as I can remember. The performance has been weak from actives in general – and I think it’s probably going to continue. I think the way that passive is evolving as well – to being maybe less market cap-based indices, like you might have read about in the paper, to more smart beta or things like that. You know, passive investing is a very, very good contender and a very, very good competitor. I see it slightly like industrialised farming – it has created a huge amount of good for the world but it has had its downsides too and these are: price discovery – value stocks will stay cheap for much longer than you want them to; and the misallocation of capital that comes from this lack of shareholder engagement. And so now the active management industry is more the artisanal, organic side of the market. It’s never going to dominate the ‘industrialised farming industry’ – in my opinion. I don’t think this is going to reverse anytime soon.
JTR: One argument you hear is the rise in passive is making markets less efficient, which should be fertile ground for active funds to beat the markets. Yet that does not often seem to happen – why not?
FL: I think it is true the market is more inefficient today – including in the US. The old trope that you can’t do active in the US because it’s so efficient is completely nonsensical when you look at the stocks. But again, to my point earlier, you cannot rely on the market trading a stock at a different price for you anymore. It’s harder, there are fewer value investors anyway and it’s just not how they work. So if price discovery is the primary driver of your return, you are liable to be disappointed. If your business’s performance – you know, its intrinsic value, growth and dividends – is how you’re going to generate the majority of your returns, then it’s down to you – it’s in your control. You chose that business – have you picked one that is a good capital allocator, in a good industry and all the things you might look for? And, as long as you’re paying a price that is demonstrably cheap or fair, you’ll be much better off because, over a longer period of time, you know that is going to happen with far more confidence than betting on other people’s behaviour.
JTR: Congratulations on your presentation, Freddie – and thank you very much for stopping by The Value Perspective Podcast. Enjoy the rest of your day.
“Why acquire another company, if you can buy your own stock back cheaper?” – Alex Roepers
AW: Alex Roepers of Atlantic Investment Management, we are here in London at the Value Investor Conference on a beautiful sunny day. You have just come off the stage – how was that for you?
AR: Always great to be here. This is the best value stock-picking conference around, as far as I know, and you are with like-minded folks in the audience and like-minded speakers. So it’s wonderful to be here.
AW: Fantastic. Something I picked out from your presentation was a focus on buybacks – how important are they to returns today, perhaps, versus other points in your career?
AR: Well, particularly in value investing, we are looking for companies that are undervalued, obviously – but we know they may remain undervalued for a period of time. So when we discuss what to do about this with management, we obviously encourage them – if they have balance-sheet strength – to find inorganic growth opportunities. That is by acquisitions – bolt-on acquisitions or strategic, transformational acquisitions – but they always need to compare the attractiveness of those acquisitions against the attractiveness of their own stock. After all, why buy a company you don’t know as well as your own company at 10x or 12x EBITDA, when you can buy your own stock back at 5x or 6x? So we force management to think about that as a competition – of use of cash and balance sheet strength.
So we find it very helpful to get to know management, in particular – and you get to the point where they say, OK, we don’t see any good acquisitions, let’s use this money to buy back shares. In the case of one company I presented, they are having very strong earnings-per-share [EPS] growth, which comes largely from share buybacks. That is because they are in an industry that is challenged right now – automotive production; they have maybe 4% or 5% out-growth because of their unique market position; and then further growth because of operating-margin improvement. But then, if you put the lever down of the use of cash and balance-sheet strength to buy back shares, these guys are representing a 20% EPS growth through a recession in their end-markets. So yes, it can be extraordinarily helpful and important. So we are promoting share buybacks as a way to enhance EPS – but also as a competitive comparison against what they might do on the M&A front.
AW: Are managements receptive to that sort of advice or challenge at the moment – given, as you say, where valuations are in some sectors, such as automotive, in particular?
AR: They are – and they had better be! It is very simple. You may go to a place like Japan, where we have been very active for 20-plus years, and share buybacks are only recently coming into vogue there. They have had a lot of very cash-rich balance sheets, out of conservatism – and the stocks are quite undervalued, if you adjust them for that. So then, quite often, they feel the need to go out internationally and to do acquisitions – and that is where they start messing up shareholder value. So we are very involved with the ones we have focused on to try to prohibit them from doing that – and instead initiate large share buybacks. And with some astonishing success, actually, on the level we are operating at – with midcap industrial companies – but it has been happening throughout Japan. In Europe, there was also a lot of resistance to that originally – and I’ve had some nice ‘exchanges’, if you will, with CEOs of companies! This is a going back a while but with, say, Schindler Group or Dutch company TNT, where we were large minority shareholders, we had ongoing battles with the top people. In the end, they did it, though, and they have no regrets – so it worked out very well.
AW: Your strategy is very focused – and on quite a specific number of sectors as well. Relative to 12 months ago, perhaps, what areas are looking particularly interesting?
AR: Well, energy services has been hammered because the sector is not in any particularly obvious growth area. It is still out of favour because energy and oil stocks, as other speakers have mentioned, are still out of favour. Oil prices have come down because the US president wants them to come down and he is getting co-operation from OPEC – and particularly Saudi Arabia – to achieve this. And, of course, there is the fear of a recession – because of the tariff war – so everything has come down in this area. We look at companies in the energy service space – we don’t go for exploration and production companies as they are really subject to the oil price and gas price development for their sales numbers and what have you. But these service providers – the ones helping companies get the gas and the oil out of the ground – have been hammered as well and they are not marking down the price of their services. They may have somewhat less volume but you can look at Schlumberger, Halliburton, Baker Hughes and Weatherford – the top three are too large for us to play with, because we also look for takeover potential.
AW: Given you mentioned the new president – rather than me! – it has been a tumultuous few months for markets since the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs with, Are they on, are they off and so on. When you are looking at businesses like this, how are you even thinking about factoring in those kinds of risks?
AR: Well, we knew what we had got with Trump, because we had him for four years before – but, this time, he is coming in with a tremendous urgency to drive through his agenda, knowing he has a year and a half, max, to do it, given the slim margin he has in the house. So he is very eager to get all these things across – including the new tax plan, deregulation and the tariff situation. His views on how the world has been taking advantage of America on the trade side is not my view and the ‘Liberation Day’ announcements shocked people – we very quickly had to backtrack on some of that.
But now he’s making deals so I think we have gone through the worst of it. It was, if you will, almost an experiment that went poorly in a way – but, breaking a lot of glass and reopening agreements and having these deals, in the end, will result in a clearer picture for everybody. So how do you deal with that? You sit through it – just like, if you’re ocean-racing and there’s a squall coming, you sit through it. You batten down the hatches and keep a straight helm – and so that is what we did. We didn’t do a lot of trading. We had some opportunities where we took off some things that didn’t go down or reduced them and bought some things that were incredibly cheap elsewhere.
AW: Fantastic. Alex, thank you for speaking to us today – and we will continue keeping a straight course through the squall!
“If the market is broadening out, then it could be a great time for active management” – Matt Ennion
JTR: Matt Ennion of Quilter Cheviot, welcome to The Value Perspective Podcast. We are now in the lunch break at the London Value Investor Conference. How are you?
ME: I’m very well, thank you. I have had a nice lunch and am enjoying the conference!
JTR: I know this is the first time you have been to this event. How are you finding it so far?
ME: It is really interesting. There are a lot of varied speakers, a lot of good ideas and a lot of good stock ideas as well. So, really interesting – and, particularly at the moment, with the markets the way they are and the opportunities available in value areas.
JTR: One thing we are seeing today – and it was also the case in the New York event earlier this year – is a lot of people pitching international markets and emerging markets. Does that resonate with you?
ME: Yes, it does. We have exposure to emerging markets and to value strategies in emerging markets and I think that is a really interesting area. You know, particularly being a UK wealth manager, we have a lot of focus on the UK and we see that as a value market – but to look for value outside of that is really important and there are a lot of opportunities in those markets. So it is certainly something we look at quite closely.
JTR: How are you thinking about the landscape for value investing in the context of markets today?
ME: I think the theme of this conference is all around a turning point, potentially, in the markets, given what is happening in the US. So I think, at the moment, there are potentially a lot of good opportunities there. Clearly, we have seen the US market dominate returns for the last couple of years, driven by the big tech companies. So, if the market does broaden out – particularly from a company perspective, but also from a market perspective – then I think there are going to be some good opportunities, and that is why we’re looking at value sectors and funds today.
JTR: I cannot pass up the opportunity to ask if you think active is losing the battle against passive?
ME: No, I don’t think so. You know, it has been a tough time for active managers but now, potentially, as I’ve just said, if the market is broadening out, then it could be a great time for active management. We are very much an active house and think the future lies with active managers.
JTR: Matt, thank you very much for your time. Enjoy the rest of the day.
“It amuses me both value and growth investors now complain the market is narrow” – David Shapiro
JTR: David Shapiro of Sustainable Growth Advisers, welcome back to The Value Perspective Podcast. It is a pleasure seeing you again – this time at the Value Investor Conference. How is your day going?
DS: Very well, thank you, Juan – and really nice to see you again as a repeat customer for your podcast! And delighted to be here again for another year at the London Value Investor Conference.
JTR: It is such a pleasure to be in the presence of one of the presenters who started the conference. How is the day going so far? Who has caught your attention?
DS: It is a theme that has caught my attention more than particular people – because there has been a recurrent theme, I think, of gold and natural resources coming through from a few of the presentations. Sometimes it tells you kind of where you are – that maybe people are looking at stock prices and looking at markets – and certainly, from the world I reside in these days, which is looking at more quality-growth, compounding-type businesses, I have no exposure to the attractions of gold, goldminers or oil companies. There was a very interesting presentation on the Athabasca oilsands from Phoenix Asset Management, for example – I would never hear that in my day job. And it’s interesting because obviously they are finding big potential value and they think there are no value traps in what is inherently a cyclical and hard-to-predict industry. That is why maybe people who look for the quality-growth side of things wouldn’t even fish there – almost at any price.
JTR: Another common theme – not only today but at the New York Value Investor Conference too – is investors presenting emerging markets ideas. Are you finding that area interesting?
DS: Yes, definitely. Another common theme to pick out – and I would broaden it out from emerging markets – is American ‘exceptionalism’ leading to US market valuations almost decoupling from the rest of the world. So there were a few throwaway comments – I think, from Sebastian Lyon – like, you’d have to be pretty mad to buy Costco at 55x earnings. I’m paraphrasing him a little bit! But you get the gist of what he’s saying – that is not going to give you a great return. And I think, particularly within the American businesses that do dominate global markets, a lot of the better-quality ones are on what would normally be considered – looked at through the ‘Cape’ lens of cyclically-adjusted price earnings – as expensive long-term valuations. And it’s very difficult – I think there was a slide that said the projected valuations are very likely to be not positive, or only marginally positive, for the US from these start valuations. And, particularly at a value conference, investors do need to be thinking about the value as well as the growth and the quality. So emerging markets are at one extreme as being probably the cheap end of the spectrum, but America is maybe flagging as ‘winking as expensive’ to people. So be very careful where you tread there.
JTR: You are privileged to engage with a lot of different investors across many different styles and asset classes. From those conversations, how are you reading the value investment style at the moment?
DS: I had a fun chat with Philip Best, who runs a very good European midcap fund and has been a presenter here in the past. And he was bemoaning how narrow the value market had been and how the banks had led the charge – and, if you hadn’t been part of that or you hadn’t had much exposure to that, it made you look a bit of a dodo for not keeping up with the indices. And I was chuckling because, back in my day job in quality growth, at the growth end of the spectrum, if you haven’t kept up with the Magnificent Seven, you’re attacked – and it’s a very, very narrow market. So it amuses me growth investors and value investors are both complaining about the market being quite so narrow at the moment! You know, as things develop, one would expect the breadth to expand and for there to be wider opportunities – but maybe there are only pockets of things that capture the market’s imagination at any one particular point in time. It never used to be that way – but, certainly, both the value side and the growth side are complaining about the same thing!
JTR: David, you have been attending this conference pretty much since its first year – what has changed and what has remained the same?
DS: Well, the good news is some of the people keep coming back, which is great! Schroders have been a backer all the way through and, amusingly, one of the first speakers out of the blocks today was Artisan’s Dan O’Keefe and he and his colleague Dave Samra have been firm supporters. And I think I was chairing – or maybe it was Richard [Oldfield] – the very first conference, when it was a lot smaller and less busy than it is today. But it is just great to see the support and see the community – and it does feel like there is a value community still. And it’s nice still to be welcome here – even though I ply my trade in more quality areas of the market these days – and you get the same genuine conversations. Of course, it made me chuckle there was a slide on the board saying ‘16 years of value underperforming growth’ because, every year, we’ve had a slide like that at the conference and, every year, people are coming back for more and more punishment! So it’s obviously a formula that works – underperform, get more attendance, become more of a cult and – who knows? – one day we could end up like Berkshire Hathaway with 50,000 people!
JTR: David, thank you very much for your time. See you at the Quality Growth Investor Conference in a couple of months.
“It is helpful when managers go from a higher level and then drill down into a stock” – Caroline Mills
JTR: Caroline Mills of Redington, welcome to The Value Perspective Podcast. How are you?
CM: I’m good. Thank you for having me.
JTR: How are you finding the conference today?
CM: It’s been such an interesting day. I think this is the third time I’ve come and I was actually saying to my colleague, every year gets busier and busier, which is probably testament to the value investment style. I think we have seen that with this year’s turn of events – and that is probably why the conference this year is so busy compared with the previous two.
JTR: Has any particular presentation or investor caught your attention today?
CM: Well, I don’t think I can say Schroders!
JTR: Oh, you totally can!
CM In all seriousness, maybe it was because Schroders was at the start of the day, but I liked the way Simon Adler ran through the process and the philosophy came through – and then how the stock came through from the start to the end. Equally, I am obviously in manager research so I think it is very helpful when the managers take it from a higher level and then drill down into the stock, as opposed to diving straight into PE ratios and net cash positions and so on. But I’ve learned a lot – from Canadian oil companies to UK retailers – so it has been a good day.
JTR: There have been, I think, two big trends in the presentations so far – a lot of ideas in emerging markets and a lot of ideas in natural resources. You clearly engage with a lot of fund managers in your day job so are you seeing these trends on a regular basis or are they relatively new?
CM: Well, to be honest with you, seeing pure-play managers in EM value is quite rare. I think there has only been one today – and, of course, you presented last year – so it’s always good to see new EM value ideas coming through. On the commodity side, I would say this is a trend we have seen over last year and this year, again, it is coming through. So, hopefully, that plays out – but it’s not something new we’ve heard.
JTR: Thank you very much for your time, Caroline. Enjoy the rest of the conference.
“Passives, for all their many benefits, are not interested in how a company is run” – Charles Heenan
JTR: Charles Heenan of Kennox Asset Management, welcome to The Value Perspective Podcast. We are at the Value Investor Conference, where you presented this morning. How is your day going?
CH: Thank you very much. It’s a great conference. I think I have been to every single one since the beginning – and you come back because it is a great place to exchange ideas, meet new people and see old faces.
JTR: You have been in this business for a generation now – is that correct?
CH: I did start in the early 1990s – so it’s been a few years!
JTR: Because, in your presentation, you were making that point about pink ticket versus blue ticket! This may be a tricky question but, over the years, what has changed and what has remained the same?
CH: In the presentation, I was talking about when I started in the 90s and some of the things that have changed. We had pink and blue paper tickets back then and that’s how we traded. I mean, the change there is enormous but, in value investing, so many things have changed. Even value investing itself – it is fascinating to think just how in fashion it was back then – you know, back in the 90s, value investing was a big thing and many, many people did it. Then, because of the last 20 years, because of the disruption, because of how much money has been made in crypto, because of how much money has been made in ‘Mag Seven’ – you know, the world has changed. It really does feel like value is much less popular around the world. Back then, you know, people used to say, When do I need to buy value? And now many people are saying, If I need to buy value …
JTR: How are you thinking about the value scene going forward?
CH: Listen, I think it is absolutely brilliant – we often say it is a golden opportunity. What we do is global, we look where other people aren’t looking and we’ve ended up with all of 2% in domestic US! I mean, we are really very able to get into different opportunities. Looking where others aren’t, I think, gives you a much fatter opportunity – if you can find things that are really, really out of favour. And I have to say – one theme I have taken away from today is the opportunities out there are amazing. We say it is golden opportunity – we think the opportunity is golden for us, certainly, because we are quite small, which means we are very nimble and have been able to find things. If you’re looking outside the US and outside the themes of tech, especially, and in the smaller areas, you can find some great opportunities.
Now we are very selective – we only have 28 stocks – but you have to be willing to look and most people aren’t. The stock we were mainly talking about today is one called Sky New Zealand. One of the reasons why it’s on 8x earnings and has free cashflow and is paying out dividends is it is aiming at a 12% dividend yield. Why can you find that? It’s just because most people don’t look – it’s not in the right place and it’s too small. So we think that opportunity to go where others don’t looks great. Back to your question on the outlook for value, we think it is not for everyone – it shouldn’t be 100% of your portfolio – but we think the future returns look great because of the valuations you’re getting right now, because of how out of favour it is.
JTR: For compliance reasons, I cannot ask for specific names but, from a regional perspective, where are you finding the best pockets of value?
CH: As I said, we have 2% in domestic US – we do actually have a few gold-miners because we think the countercyclical and risk points are quite interesting. But where we have found real value is in Asia, especially, and in the UK, which is massively undervalued and unloved. You always wonder, Well, why is it unloved? One of the reasons is the move we have seen since 2000, when the UK pension funds used to have 50% of their assets in UK equities, down to sub-5%. They have been sellers – so who’s buying? Well, the global players haven’t been. So the UK, and especially small and mids, have been very interesting. And there are a lot of companies we like in Hong Kong. There are real risks there but also a long tradition of conservative balance sheets, paying out big dividends – ‘pay it out, if you can’. So you get a very juicy return and that just balances the risk to reward – and we think that’s interesting. We own a couple of South Korean stocks and one in particular is trading at a negative enterprise value – in other words, there is more cash on the balance sheet than in the market cap. It’s on about 4x earnings. Those types of opportunities are really interesting.
JTR: I cannot pass up the opportunity to ask you something we ask so many of our guests on this podcast – is active losing the battle against passive?
CH: Absolutely – we’re getting taken to the cleaners! But that is the past. I mean, I am a big believer there is a place for passive but we have to be very clear: it can’t be 100% because this is about stewardship. We need to look after our companies and passives, for all their many benefits, are not interested in what a company does and how it is run. That is stewardship, which is very important for our society. Also, passives cannot run 100% of the world’s stockmarkets because, you know, the returns suddenly become locked in! So there is a place for active and I think we are getting to the point where we’re hitting ‘peak passive’ because it has just been such a strong bull market in such a narrow area of the benchmarks – why would you need to pay for something different? But it can’t go that far. So listen – if you’re going to be active, you should be very active – you shouldn’t just follow benchmarks and you shouldn’t be plus or minus 1% and own the same things. Clearly there is a place for passive but, because of the opportunity set we just talked about, I think the outlook for active – the right active – looks absolutely brilliant from here.
JTR: Charles, thank you very much for your time. Enjoy the rest of conference.
“Founder investment cycles are where valuation disconnects really do occur” – Andrew Hollingworth
AW: Andrew Hollingworth of Holland Advisors, you have just come off the stage at the London Value Investor Conference on what is a beautifully sunny day. How was the experience for you?
AH: It was good. It was good. I’ve done it a few times now – I think, three or four. So it’s nice to be back.
AW: Fantastic. As a returning speaker, how are you feeling about the ‘vibe’ among the value community at the moment? Is it a bit more upbeat than in the recent past?
AH: It’s always depressed! They are always justifying why they don’t own the ‘Mag Seven’ and why they might do better and so on. So there is a bit more ‘quality value’ in there, I think, these days – people have ‘evolved’ their definitions a little bit – but it’s still a sort of ‘Could be doing better’ vibe, I think.
AW: Could you give our listeners a bit of a taste of what you were talking about today?
AH: Yes. As we were just saying, it is a visual gag but I’m wearing a T-shirt with the word ‘Judas’ written on it – and the reason it has the word ‘Judas’ on it is because my speech was entitled, ‘Think harder and pay up’. I then proceeded to talk about a company called Wise plc, which is on about 25x earnings today, and I think value investors – or all investors, frankly- should be owning it. And I’m trying to justify why I should be recommending such a share at a value conference.
AW: Fantastic. You also spoke about having a slight obsession with owner-managers – why do you think that is such a good dynamic for an investor in a business?
AH: There are a number of studies – Bain do the main one but others do too – that basically show owner-manager businesses, or founder-led businesses, outperform over time. So I think it is perfectly logical to want to invest in them. Now, those businesses include a Berkshire Hathaway or an Amazon or a Tesla or whatever else – and those types of companies are maybe quite well understood, because the owner-manager themselves articulates the business well and the business is predictable. So you’re maybe not going to get value when you invest in those companies – but the same is true of other owner-managed companies, like Meta or like Frasers in the UK, where they have still got the same alignment and they have still got the same talent running the business, but you might get a fantastic price because of the cyclical way the share price moves.
AW: Relative to history, would you say there are more opportunities today for those kind of businesses? Are there many that are particularly depressed today?
AH: At any snapshot in time, you can think, Oh, there’s nothing to do – there’s nothing in this price today. You know, if I bought Meta at 150 and now it’s 600, I wouldn’t particularly be buying more now, of course, but then something comes along – something else comes across your desk and you look at another company with another sort of business model or a different kind of manager you’ve not come across. I think, ultimately, the stockmarket is always misunderstanding founder-led companies but, at most points in time – let’s pick a number – 73% of them are broadly priced OK, 20% are priced a bit cheap and maybe 7% of them are super-cheap. But that can be the case all over the world – that doesn’t necessarily rely on a high stockmarket or a low stockmarket. Valuation isn’t just about the sentiment of the stockmarket – it’s about what that company is going through and whether the stockmarket has misunderstood it or not.
AW: In your presentation, you talked about the behaviour of managers and the behaviour of markets colliding – does that tend to happen on an idiosyncratic basis or are there points in the cycle where you see more of those collisions happening?
AH: There are different reasons why a cycle happens – that is, a disconnect between the stockmarket and the founders. The obvious one is a sentiment cycle – for example, during Covid, Ryanair shares are objectively low because of what will happen in Covid. But that is sort of obvious and the whole stockmarket is sort of down so, while opportunities can occur, you can’t rely on them occurring very often. More interesting ones are probably investment cycles that companies go through – and the perfect one, which I presented today, was what used to be called Facebook and it rebranded itself as Meta because of the ‘metaverse’. It spent tens of billions of dollars in capital expenditure and its share price went down, whatever it was, 75% in 18 months – well, that was just where the stockmarket didn’t understand the investment cycle of that business. And I think the investment cycle of founders, where businesses invest for long periods of time – one, two, three, four, five years – is what the stockmarket really doesn’t like. And that is where the disconnect can really occur.
AW: Fantastic. Andrew, thank you very much for coming on The Value Perspective Podcast.
“Mean reversion alone suggests a better stockpicking environment going forward” – Scott Gibson
AW: Scott Gibson of SJP, we are here at the London Value Investor Conference on a beautiful day. How you finding things so far?
SG: I think it’s a fantastic day. It just shows there is a wide distribution of managers, even within value – and there are many different approaches to it. It’s always good to hear other people’s opinions and hear how each individual manager approaches things and sees their edge in that space.
AW: You get to see not only the broad gamut of value managers, but also completely across the piece. Who would you say is more upbeat at the moment – value managers or growth managers?
SG: That’s a tough one! I think both are relatively positive – you know, there are always two sides to an argument. So you hear value managers talk about mean reversion and that aspect – and then you hear growth managers say, ‘This time different’ and we’re picking fantastic businesses that continue to compound earnings. So both are relatively positive.
AW: The last few months, since ‘Liberation Day’, have been tough for all of us, with a lot of volatility in the markets and so on. Are you taking that all in your stride or are you thinking about the world slightly differently than you did just a few months ago?
SG: If you take a long-term approach, this is just short-term volatility so I think, for us, that means there is not much change. You know, markets can move quite quickly in the short term – as we saw after 2 April. There was two weeks of strong underperformance and then two weeks of rebounding back to the levels it had been at. I think that highlights that you don’t want to react to the short-term noise.
AW: The active-passive debate rages on, to some extent, but the market moves this year have actually led some end-investors to think harder about their US weights – and certainly their Nasdaq and ‘Mag Seven’ overweighting. How are you thinking about the evolution of your portfolio construction in terms of active and passive allocations?
SG: In general, there should always be room for active. That is something I believe in personally and I think you will see that come through over the longer term. I think there is also a discussion to be had about active underperformance, in terms of the number of managers outperforming being the smallest it has been over any of the decades. So, even if you allow for some mean reversion there, it should be a better environment for active managers and a better stockpicking environment going forward than it has been for the last 10 years.
AW: Finally, I am just going to put you on the spot here – do you have any view on whether the next decade will be better for value or for growth managers? And you are allowed to decline to answer the question, I feel, given what you do!
SG: I think I probably should!
AW: Fair enough, Scott! Thank you very much – you have been a great sport.
“People have been more sceptical here than at New York, which makes me happy!” – Jonathan Boyar
AW: Jonathan Boyar of Boyar Value Group, we are here in London at the Value Investor Conference on what is now a beautiful, sunny evening. And you have been on-stage twice today, not only doing a presentation., but also compering a virtual ‘fireside chat’ with Anthony Scaramucci – ‘The Mooch’! Let’s start with your presentation – how was it up there for you today?
JB: I think you have to ask the audience how it was! But, as I’m telling people, it’s like exercise – it’s better when you’re done! But I think it went well. The topic was investing in trophy assets – assets that are really not replicable, that are scarce – and we gave four examples that have catalysts. The four names were Madison Square Garden Sports, Atlanta Braves Holdings, which is a baseball team, Formula One and Madison Square Garden Entertainment. I gave our investment thesis and then the next thing I talked about was ‘non-traditional value’, where I discuss Airbnb and Uber – and I saw Andy in the stands, you know, gasping, I can’t believe someone would buy a company at 24x EBITDA!
AW: Sacrilege!
JB: It is sacrilege! So that was good. And then, my favourite part of the day was interviewing my friend Anthony Scaramucci.
AW: Well, let’s start with some stocks. Not in too much detail – you should never ask someone to pick their favourite child! But I’m thinking one of the sports franchises – which are you most excited about?
JB: In the short term, Atlanta Braves Holdings. That’s the one I’m most excited about – the reason being, as I mentioned in the speech, the two-year spin-off milestone ends in July, which makes it much easier for the company to be sold. But Madison Square Garden Sports – more upside, less likely for a sale.
AW: Gotcha. And turning to Anthony Scaramucci, this gig means I actually missed some of your fireside chat, very sadly, but perhaps you could fill me in on his views.
JB: Oh – I don’t think we have enough time to fill you in on Mooch’s views! But, you know, Scaramucci has been a vocal thorn in Trump’s side. He was his communications director – and was famously fired after 11 days! So there is bad blood between them but I wanted to ask some positive things Trump has done – and he listed a few, including deregulation. But then he just talked about all the negatives, which I don’t necessarily need to go into, because they’re pretty obvious! He talked about trade policy and stressed Trump was definitely not playing ‘three dimensional chess’. And then he said, The fortunate thing – and I’m just going by his view – is Trump has tired of tariffs and is going to move on to the next thing that piques his interest.
AW: So we met each other a few months ago, when we were at the New York Value Investor Conference, and now here we are in London – and so much has changed in just a couple of months. New York was pre ‘Liberation Day’ and it felt like value investors were as bullish as they can be, I guess, for a group of contrarians who tend to think about the downside. A little bit different of a mood here in London! How are you feeling about … I don’t want to say value versus growth, as I don’t like that – but how are you feeling about the opportunity set, the runway from here, for active value?
JB: It’s funny you mention that. One, if I had to guess, the S&P is probably within 3% or 4% of when we left that conference. Obviously there has been a huge drawdown in between but it wasn’t so long ago – if memory serves, it was mid-March, end of March. Now we are mid-May and the S&P went down whatever percent. And now it’s pretty much where it was.
AW: You could have been on holiday for six weeks!
JB: Yes – and it probably would have been better, at least from a mental health perspective! So I left the New York conference actually feeling really scared because everyone was so bullish – you know, the word ‘tariff’ didn’t even come up, I think, in any of the presentations I saw. Here, people are a little bit more sceptical, which makes me happy!
AW: Great. Jon, thanks very much for coming on the pod again – it has been a pleasure as always.
“EM’s time probably has now come – albeit more from a shift in developed markets” – Mark Boulton
JTR: Mark Boulton of Pictet Asset Management, welcome to The Value Perspective Podcast. It is a pleasure to see you at the end of the London Value Investor Conference. How has your day been?
MB: I’m good, Juan. Very good indeed. Obviously, we miss you at Pictet – so lovely to meet up!
JTR: The conference has now come to an end – what caught your attention today?
MB:A few things. A little bit of reinforcement bias is always nice so there were a couple of presentations I liked. Kopernik was one – obviously you and I both run value emerging market equity funds and Alissa had some overlap of themes there, with gold-miners and uranium being a couple. I also liked how she was the only one today, I think, to ruminate on 16 years of underperformance by value – but then step back effectively and look at 100 years, when it stands a very good chance of outperforming. So I think it is always useful to remember that. And I think a lot of speakers – including Richard Oldfield himself – said, This time, it’s different. If you believe monetary policy will normalise from hereon – which I do – then I think we have a really decent chance at it being different from now on for value.
JTR: A big theme I have noticed at this event – and also the New York Value Conference I just came back from – is a lot of people pitching emerging markets. As you say, you are an emerging markets value manager yourself – how are you feeling about value in emerging markets at the moment?
MB: As you and I both know, emerging markets have been out of favour for a long time – you know, they have done nothing really in 10 or 15 years. And with good reason because earnings growth hasn’t been there compared to somewhere like the US. Value has also been out of out of favour and Alissa also mentioned small and midcaps versus largecap, which we don’t really do so much of. But I am now feeling very optimistic – you know, it’s been a long time in the wilderness but I think our time probably has come. That is more from a shift in terms of what is happening with developed markets – you know, reaching the end of the runway in terms of fiscal support for economies; inflation being back, meaning monetary support is no longer there, which means the underlying fundamentals that are looking good in many emerging countries will come to the fore. So, yes, optimistic.
JTR: The closing session of the day was with Anthony Scaramucci, which was really interesting. He made some comments on the US/China geopolitical situation – what is your take on that?
MB: Yes – I think we are all trying to work out what Trump is up to at the moment. One interesting thing on that was, I had a chat with David Zervos of Jefferies the other day, because I very much was feeling Trump was shooting from the hip – and he actually slightly countered that. You know, I’m a Brit – I don’t really know what happens in US politics – but what he was saying, which was interesting to me, was that when you get voted out of power, as Trump did in 2020, everyone who is advising you, basically all the academics, go and take refuge in a thinktank somewhere supportive of their ideology. And there is a thinktank called the America First Policy Institute, I believe, where they have all been sitting for four years working on policies.
So this sort of executive order-driven scattergun – fire, fire, fire, fire, fire – there may be more thought behind it than I had given credence to. And, you know, Trump is a deal-maker – he makes the outrageous initial claim but is reasonably pragmatic in terms of coming up with something that works. I think that’s probably where we are. The question is whether the level we end up with is something that works and isn’t too damaging – number one. And number two, which really concerns me – and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it – is the uncertainty that it creates. That is what could be really damaging, I think – decision-making on hold for six months – in all sorts of ways. And what happens to the global economy in that sort of environment?
JTR: Mark Boulton, thank you very much for your time and for coming on The Value Perspective Podcast.
Subscribe to our Insights
Visit our preference centre, where you can choose which Schroders Insights you would like to receive.
Authors
Topics