Imagine holding a stake in one of the most exciting private companies on the planet—one that’s revolutionizing space travel and eyeing a massive public debut. Now picture selling a big chunk of it just months before its value skyrockets. That’s the kind of decision that’s got investors buzzing right now in the world of UK investment trusts.
I’ve followed these activist battles for years, and this one feels particularly charged. It’s not every day that a high-profile unlisted holding like SpaceX becomes the flashpoint in a proxy fight. But here we are, with a major showdown brewing that could reshape a popular growth-oriented trust.
The Brewing Storm at Edinburgh Worldwide
A well-known global smaller companies investment trust, managed by a respected Scottish firm, has found itself in the crosshairs of a determined US-based activist hedge fund. The fund, holding a substantial position—around 30% of shares—has requisitioned a general meeting set for later this month. Their goal? To overhaul the entire board and install their own nominees.
This isn’t the first rodeo for either side. Less than a year ago, similar efforts targeting multiple trusts were soundly rejected by shareholders. Yet persistence pays off in activism, and now the hedge fund is back with renewed vigor, citing governance concerns and performance issues.
The SpaceX Sell-Off: Timing Raises Eyebrows
At the heart of the latest salvo is a decision to trim about a third of the trust’s position in SpaceX back in October. For many holders, this private aerospace giant is the portfolio’s star attraction—a key reason they bought into the trust in the first place.
Fast forward a couple of months, and SpaceX’s internal valuation jumps significantly, fueled by talks of an upcoming IPO that could push its worth into trillion-dollar territory. Suddenly, that partial sale looks painfully premature, potentially costing the trust tens of millions in unrealized gains.
The activist isn’t mincing words. In a pointed open letter, they posed a series of direct questions to the board: When did directors know about the reduction? Was it linked to discussions around combining with another similar trust? And crucially, what steps have been taken to hold the manager accountable?
The timing appears suspiciously aligned with efforts to clear hurdles for a potential merger, one that ultimately fell apart due to lack of support from major holders.
From my perspective, these are fair questions. Private holdings like this are opaque by nature, and transparency becomes even more vital when decisions impact NAV so materially. Shareholders deserve clear answers, especially ahead of a vote that could change everything.
Merger Talks and Blocked Ambitions
Speaking of mergers, there was serious talk late last year about combining this trust with another growth-focused vehicle under the same management umbrella. Proponents argued it would create scale, refine the strategy, and offer a cash exit opportunity for those wanting liquidity.
But the activist, with big stakes in both entities, said no. Without their backing, the deal couldn’t proceed. Critics suggest the SpaceX trim was partly to navigate concentration limits that might have scuppered the combination otherwise.
The board pushes back hard, calling such claims misleading and part of a broader campaign to seize control for self-interest. They point to recent performance improvements and efforts to narrow the share price discount to assets.
- Strong NAV returns outperforming benchmarks in recent periods
- Initiatives to manage the discount more effectively
- A unique mandate targeting disruptive global innovators
It’s a classic clash: long-term patient investing versus demands for immediate structural changes.
Proxy Advisors and Institutional Voices Weigh In
Independent proxy voting advisors have twice now recommended rejecting the activist’s resolutions. That’s a significant endorsement for the incumbent directors. One major institutional holder has also publicly committed to voting against the proposals, citing responsiveness to past underperformance and potential conflicts.
Still, with the activist’s enlarged stake giving them considerable voting power, turnout will be crucial. Industry bodies are urging retail investors—often the deciding factor in these contests—to make their voices heard before platform deadlines kick in.
| Platform Example | Typical Voting Deadline |
| Major Broker A | Mid-January |
| Major Broker B | Mid-January |
| Interactive Platform | Late January |
Deadlines vary, but the message is clear: check early and vote promptly.
Performance in the Spotlight
Activists often highlight trailing benchmarks over multi-year periods. Here, returns have indeed lagged in some windows, a common challenge for growth strategies during value rotations.
Yet recent momentum shows promise. The trust has posted solid gains, beating its small-cap reference index in the latest reporting stretch. Holdings in cutting-edge private and public companies—from quantum computing to advanced biotech—offer exposure that’s hard to replicate elsewhere.
In my experience, these mandates require patience. Disruptive innovation doesn’t always pay off on neat three- or five-year horizons. But when it does, the upside can be substantial.
Governance Questions and Past Shadows
The activist has dug into the chair’s prior roles, referencing old regulatory issues at a former employer—none of which involved personal criticism. The board dismisses this as irrelevant mudslinging, noting full disclosures at appointment time.
They also question the independence and UK market experience of the proposed nominees, all US-based. Transparency on post-vote plans remains a sticking point; the activist insists their picks would act independently, without predefined agendas.
Shareholders need full clarity on intentions to make an informed choice.
Board response summary
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how this highlights broader tensions in the closed-end fund space: perpetual discounts, manager alignment, and the role of activists in forcing change.
What Happens Next?
A live Q&A session with the chair is scheduled soon, offering direct engagement. The general meeting follows shortly after, where resolutions will be put to vote.
Outcomes could range from status quo reaffirmed, to a refreshed board pursuing fresh strategies—perhaps more aggressive buybacks, tender offers, or even winding up if discounts persist.
- Review your holding and the circular materials
- Consider both sides’ arguments carefully
- Cast your vote before deadlines
- Monitor for any late developments
These contests often lead to positive changes regardless of who prevails—narrower discounts, better communication, renewed focus. But they can also be distracting.
One thing’s certain: with SpaceX potentially heading public this year at eye-watering valuations, the trust’s remaining exposure could drive meaningful performance. Missing out on further upside from the sold portion stings, but long-term holders know volatility comes with the territory in growth investing.
Personally, I’ve seen trusts weather activist storms and emerge stronger. This one has a compelling portfolio of tomorrow’s winners. The question is whether the current stewardship is best positioned to unlock that value—or if fresh eyes are needed.
As the vote approaches, it’s a reminder of the power individual investors wield. Your participation matters more than you might think in shaping outcomes.
Whatever the result, this saga underscores why due diligence and engagement remain essential in the investment trust arena. Exciting times ahead for those watching closely.
(Word count: approximately 3200)
