Blog*. Would you be interested to invest?

Dozens of businesses are now seeking to attract investors’ attention by flagging up a connection with blockchain in their name or focus – exactly as happened with the word ‘dotcom’ 20 or so years ago *Not a real company/website at time of publication


Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy

Fund Manager, Equity Value

One of the first things you learn as a value investor is to dig below the surface of any potential investment – analysing a business’s balance sheet and other data to ensure you really understand its underlying value, its financial strength and how it works.

In short, a relentless focus on the numbers means we are not tempted to take anything at face value – to judge a book by its cover, so to speak, or indeed a company by its name.

And yet there would appear to be plenty of investors who are more than happy to do so – particularly when the company name reflects a hot new trend.

A note by ‘future technology’ specialists at Autonomous Next entitled The BlockChain Pretenders neatly encapsulates the point by counting 31 companies that have so far either added ‘Blockchain’ to their name or announced a switch in focus to blockchain technologies.

'Name-gaming' - the use of buzzwords 

This practice of assimilating the latest buzzword into one’s business is known as ‘name-gaming’ and, if history is any guide, we are set to see more than 100 bitcoin-related instances in 2018.

So at least suggest the Autonomous Next analysts – pointing to a 2002 academic study, The Game of the Name, that found examples of name-gaming during the dotcom bubble jumped from 13 in 1998 to 126 in 1999 before falling back to 36 in 2000.

The trend later reversed, with 57 companies deleting ‘Dotcom’ from their names by the end of 2001.

The Autonomous Next analysts go on to note the median stock among their BlockChain sample rose by an eye-catching 265% in 2017.

“This puts the Dotcom name game to shame, where stocks with name changes only went up 118%,” they add drily.

“Paltry compared to the rise of bitcoin – but what isn’t?”

And they conclude: “We don’t recommend anything about these companies, other than noting they exist, are doing this and are gaming the pinballing valuation mechanics between the public, private and crypto markets.”


Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy

Fund Manager, Equity Value

I joined Schroders in 2000 as an equity analyst with a focus on construction and building materials.  In 2006, Nick Kirrage and I took over management of a fund that seeks to identify and exploit deeply out of favour investment opportunities. In 2010, Nick and I also took over management of the team's flagship UK value fund seeking to offer income and capital growth.

Important Information:

The views and opinions displayed are those of Nick Kirrage, Andrew Lyddon, Kevin Murphy, Andrew Williams, Andrew Evans, Simon Adler, Juan Torres Rodriguez, Liam Nunn, Vera German and Roberta Barr, members of the Schroder Global Value Equity Team (the Value Perspective Team), and other independent commentators where stated.

They do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders' communications, strategies or funds. The Team has expressed its own views and opinions on this website and these may change.

This article is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information on the website when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Nothing in this article should be construed as advice. The sectors/securities shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be considered a recommendation to buy/sell.

Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.