Fund profile

Concentrated portfolio of 13 global equity stocks plus Lindsell Train funds

Lindsell Train Investment Trust (LTI) aims to deliver long-term total returns while preserving the real value of capital. It invests in a concentrated portfolio of 13 global companies, alongside selected Lindsell Train funds and a stake in its manager, Lindsell Train Limited (LTL). The LTL management fee for LT managed funds and other funds that LTL manages are rebated back to LTI, in order to avoid double charging of fees.

As of March 2026, global equities accounted for 62.4% of NAV, with look-through exposure to 49 holdings. The trust is benchmarked against the MSCI World Index (in sterling) but is managed independently, with an active share close to 100%. LTI was launched in 2001 and is listed on the premium segment of the main market of the London Stock Exchange. LTI’s board of directors is the company’s AIFM and receives no remuneration for this role.

Investment approach

LTL focuses on holding a small number of companies for the long term. The company states that it believes concentration can reduce risk more effectively than broad diversification. According to LTL, these businesses typically have durable competitive advantages and long histories, with the average age of LTI’s direct equity holdings being around 147 years.

LTI has helped seed LTL funds

Historically, LTI has helped to seed new LTL fund and then has benefitted from their growth. Its initial £66,000 investment in LTL has increased to £28.2m (as at the end of March 2026), peaking at 48% of NAV in 2021. Since then, it has declined to 19.8% (at end March 2026), which appear to be the result of weaker performance and reduced assets under management.

Market backdrop

War in Iran has heightened global geopolitical uncertainty

Global market uncertainty appears to have increased with the war in Iran contributing to greater geopolitical tensions and impacting the global economic recovery. Growth expectations have been lowered following the energy price shock and rising inflation, with central banks delaying rate cutting plans as a higher-for-longer interest rate narrative develops.

At the same time, investors appear to be evaluating how artificial intelligence (AI) may reshape various industries and sectors, distinguishing between potential beneficiaries and those that could be at risk of disruption.

Markets appear to have become more event-driven and volatile, with concerns about inflation, oil prices, interest rates, and geopolitics all seemingly impacting sentiment. Uncertainty related to both geopolitics and the potential impact of AI has had a significant effect on LTI and LTL’s portfolios. Both are examined here.

Geopolitical tension

Defensive stocks back in focus

It appears that the war in Iran and wider instability in the Middle East have helped to bring defensive stocks back into focus. While energy, defence/aerospace and selective commodity stocks have made substantial gains, other sectors often considered safe havens, including banking, also appear to have benefitted. LTL’s consumer staples exposure has appeared relatively resilient in recent months. Within LTI’s portfolio, beauty and personal care company Unilever was up double-digits in the year before it was reported that it was selling its food business in March (which is detailed on page 9). Mondelez and soft drinks manufacturer AG Barr were both up in the weeks following the outbreak of war.

All four companies have long-term records of durable and growing revenues and could continue to compound returns over time. In the last period of significant market volatility – at the start of 2025 when tariff uncertainty and the DeepSeek large language model (LLM) launched – LTI and LTL’s portfolio showed signs of resilience, while tech-dominated indices, including the S&P 500 and NASDAQ, declined. This is illustrated in Figure 1, which shows LTI’s NAV return relative to the MSCI World Index.

Figure 1: LTI NAV total return relative to the MSCI World Index¹

The benefits LTI has previously enjoyed from its defensive positioning were less pronounced following the start of the war in Iran this year. However, this period also saw several of LTL’s data businesses come under pressure amidst a broader sell-off of software businesses.

Software sell-off

Data businesses suffered large sell-off

Following the launch by Anthropic of industry specific plugins for Claude Cowork in January – targeting particular verticals such as legal and finance – there was a period of widespread selling of data and digital platform businesses. It has been suggested that cheap AI tools could commoditise data provision, which could impact future growth prospects.

A number of LTI and LTL’s holdings appear to have been affected by this trend, including London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) and RELX.

LTL believes that the market has misjudged both companies, underestimating the long-term value of the datasets on which the new AI models depend. In sectors such as legal, risk, financial, and medical, the cost of error is considered by LTL to be high, while much of the underlying data is protected by physical and regulatory barriers, suggesting that a significant proportion may remain unavailable to large language models (LLMs). LTL believes that trusted, accurate, reference-grade data should remain valuable even as AI tools become more widely adopted.

Figure 2: RELX (GBP)

RELX, which provides services to the global scientific, legal and insurance industries, already offers AI-enabled workflow tools. According to LTL, whilst new AI applications are being developed, the value is less likely to accrue to the models themselves but more to the owners of the datasets upon which they rely.

Both RELX and LSEG are described by LTL as possessing clear data moats. RELX, for example, is reported to have amassed over 100 billion legal documents and counting, the majority of which contain proprietary content, it adds. LTL estimates that this legal data is rarely more than 1%-2% of a law firm’s cost base. It believes this data is critical to these firms and does not see it as an obvious target for cost savings.

LTL believes that investors have overly discounted the long-term earnings potential of these and other data businesses, creating a buying opportunity. As such, LTI has recently initiated a position in US credit-scoring company FICO (which is detailed on page 10).

Investment process

Investment universe of 150 companies

LTL operates within a small universe of potential investments, typically no more than 150 companies, due to its focus on heritage businesses with predictable earnings (supported by pricing power and/or intellectual property), low capital intensity and high returns on capital. LTI has maintained a concentrated portfolio since its launch in 2001, averaging around 15 holdings (currently 13).

Most qualifying companies appear to fall into a limited number of broad sectors:

• Consumer branded goods;
• Internet, media, software; and
• Financials and networks.

Bottom-up approach without reference to benchmark

The portfolio is constructed on a “bottom-up” basis, with no reference to benchmarks. Each potential investment undergoes a due diligence process, which may last several years, including meetings with management and industry analysis.

Valuation is assessed using multiple methods. LTL says that it does not rely on traditionally constructed discounted cash flow (DCF) models, but its approach shares some of the core principles of DCF, particularly in focusing on the long-term sustainability of returns of a company are considered. Companies that are identified as offering the best value are selected for inclusion in the portfolio.

ESG integration

Signatory of UN Principles for Responsible Investment

LTI’s manager is a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, the UK Stewardship Code, and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. The manager says that it engages with portfolio companies on ESG issues, including climate change, and measures portfolio-level carbon emissions, footprint (tCO₂e/$m invested), and intensity (tCO₂e/$m sales) to assess exposure to climate-related risks.

LTL believes that companies with strong ESG standards are likely to be more durable and deliver superior long-term returns. It adds that ESG analysis is embedded in the investment process and covers environmental factors (including climate change), social, governance (including remuneration and capital allocation), as well as cyber resilience, responsible data use, human rights, anti-corruption, and reputational risks.

ESG factors influence portfolio decisions

Where ESG factors are expected to materially affect long-term prospects, they may be incorporated into valuation assumptions, particularly long-term growth rates, and may influence portfolio decisions, including whether to initiate, hold, or exit positions.

Consistent with its philosophy, LTL avoids:

capital-intensive sectors such as energy, commodities, and mining, including companies involved in coal, oil, or gas extraction; and

industries that it considers socially harmful or exposed to regulatory or litigation risk, such as tobacco, gambling, and arms manufacturing.

Active engagement with company management on ESG and stewardship issues is described as a core part of the strategy. Whilst generally supportive of management, LTL states that it will seek to influence decisions where it disagrees with company actions.

Investment policy and restrictions

LTI can invest globally across a broad range of financial assets, including equities (listed and unlisted), bonds, funds and cash, with no sector or geographic constraints. Individual holdings are limited to 15% of gross assets. It may also invest up to 25% in LTL-managed funds (subject to board approval) and may retain holdings in LTL to benefit from its long-term growth.

The company does not invest for control purposes and will not allocate more than 15% of gross assets to other closed-ended investment funds.

Exits

Low single-digit portfolio turnover rate

LTL maintains a low single-digit portfolio turnover rate, with LTI’s turnover even lower. Investments are typically held for the long term, which the company says reflects its conviction in the value of owning businesses over extended periods.

Positions are reduced or exited when certain criteria are met, such as a share price exceeding intrinsic value or a perceived erosion of competitive advantages.

Long-term holding avoids transaction fees

This long-term approach should help in keeping transaction costs to a minimum – the manager views these as a drag on capital – although the manager notes that it can require patience and discipline to look beyond short-term market fluctuations. The manager indicates that exit decisions may also be influenced by the availability of alternative opportunities that are perceived to have stronger upside potential, with the manager typically identifying two or three vetted candidates at any given time.

Asset allocation

At 31 March 2026, more than 60% of LTI’s portfolio value was invested in global equities, with LTL comprising almost 20%. Over a third of underlying portfolio revenue appeared to originate from the US (on a look-through basis including positions in LTL), while Europe accounted for a quarter of revenues and the UK just over a fifth.

Figure 3: Breakdown of LTI’s portfolio at 31 March 2026

Figure 4: LTI portfolio by location of underlying revenue at 30 Sept 2025¹

Figure 5: LTI holdings at 31 March 2026

LTI’s holdings have been discussed in previous notes (links to which can be found on page 18). This section provides information on recent events among portfolio companies and includes an update on LTL.

Universal Music Group (UMG)

Figure 6: UMG (EUR)

LTL’s investment rationale for UMG, which it bought into at the end of 2023, was explained in detail in the initiation note, and the manager comments that this has not changed. The manager believes that the Euronext Amsterdam-listed company was undervalued, and a £48bn bid for the company by Pershing Square Capital Management was announced earlier this month. The deal values UMG’s shares at €25 compared to its previous closing price of €17.05.

Assuming the transaction goes ahead, shareholders in UMG will receive €9.4bn in cash and 0.77 new UMG shares as part of the deal, which would see UMG merge with Pershing Square SPARC Holdings. This is the special purpose vehicle established four years ago to make a large acquisition, and list on the New York stock exchange. Under the transaction, 17% of UMG shares would be bought back and cancelled while preserving the company’s investment grade balance sheet, and a new dividend policy may also be adopted.

UMG’s shares have remained at lower levels since listing in 2021. Frequently cited concerns include the French conglomerate Bolloré Group’s 18% stake and the postponement of UMG’s US Listing, under-utilisation of its balance sheet, and the potential impact of AI deepfakes on music industry revenues may have weighed on performance.

The LTL team observes that whilst AI can generate large volumes of music-like content, it does not change the value of established and in-demand catalogues. According to the LTL team, UMG’s ownership of major music rights, with control of roughly a third of the world’s recorded music (ahead of the other two major players Sony and Warner), puts it in a strong position to push for better pricing from streaming platforms such as Spotify.

LTL thinks that the payout model currently used by the platforms – based on a simple pro-rata share of listening – has room to improve and expects it to evolve to allow for minimum payments or fixed-value arrangements tied to the worth of catalogues. According to the manager, this could give UMG leverage to require platforms to absorb higher content costs or raise their own subscription prices. The manager thinks that these changes may take time to be implemented because UMG needs to align terms across multiple streaming partners, but believes the direction of travel is positive.

Unilever

Figure 7: Unilever (GBP)

FTSE 100 conglomerate Unilever has been a long-term holding for LTL and a consistent presence in LTI’s portfolio. Last month, the group announced it had reached a deal to sell its food business to spice maker McCormick, creating a $66bn company with $20bn of annual revenues.

As part of the cash-and-stock transaction, Unilever shareholders will own 65% of the combined group, with McCormick owning the remaining 35%. Unilever will also receive $15.7bn of cash from McCormick under the deal terms. The transaction has been structured as a Reverse Morris Trust, a structure that allows the parent company (Unilever) to potentially minimise its tax liabilities on the disposal if it retains a majority stake in the divested enterprise.

Unilever states that the deal, which is expected to complete by mid-2027 subject to McCormick shareholder approval, will change the company from a multi-category conglomerate into a more focused beauty and personal care company. The division accounts for a large portion of group revenues and is regarded as operating in faster-growing sectors.

Unilever has been shifting its focus away from food over the past decade towards beauty and wellbeing categories, and last year spun off its Magnum ice cream holding into an independent entity.

Shareholders appeared to react negatively towards the McCormick deal, with Unilever’s share price falling since first being reported in March. LTI had reduced its position in Unilever earlier in the year, before the price weakened. The manager believes that the greater attraction of Unilever’s household and personal care portfolio has put selling pressure on the remains of Unilever’s food business. The manager believes that it is this, rather than the merits of the deal, that has negatively impacted Unilever’s share price.

FICO

Figure 8: FICO (USD)

Partly funded by the exit of Unilever’s Magnum ice cream business noted above, LTI initiated a 2% holding in US-listed credit scoring company FICO in February. It has been a constituent of LTL’s global equity portfolio since 2022, and the manager explains that the decision to add to its position followed share price weakness linked to the perceived threat from AI.

FICO has two core businesses: the credit scores segment and the software arm. LTL notes that much of FICO’s growth appears to have come from pricing power, and states that there may be further room to raise prices following what it describes as decades of undercharging. LTL believes that the scores business may still have a significant growth runway, with potential opportunities to increase pricing and adjust its charging model, as well as to capture more of the value chain. According to LTL, the software business’s shift to a new cloud-based platform has presented opportunities to cross-sell its risk and fraud prevention services.

LTL thinks that fears around AI disruption may be misplaced in FICO’s case due to the sensitivity and protection given to the underlying bureau data and the regulatory burden around the scores themselves.

Diageo

Figure 9: Diageo (GBP)

A recent development at Diageo was the announcement of the halving of its dividend. Chief executive Dave Lewis said that the company had decided to reduce the pay-out in order to strengthen its balance sheet and support long-term growth.

Lewis had been appointed earlier this year to lead the company, which owns several premium spirit brands that are among the best-selling globally, yet has experienced a marked decline in its share price since its peak in 2021. The dollar-based company declared an interim dividend of 20 cents per share in half-year results, down from 40.5 cents. Going forward, it said it would target paying 30-50% of earnings with a minimum annual dividend of 50 cents.

LTL explains that it supports the dividend cut, provided it helps protect the balance sheet and avoids actions such as selling assets. LTL acknowledges the disappointment and believes that the core long-term strengths of the business remain, citing strong brands, durable market positions, and growth potential in markets such as India.

Diageo’s share price weakness has increased recently. With the company importing a significant portion of its products into the US from Mexico and Canada, Trump’s tariffs appear to have been a headwind. Another concern for shareholders is that people may be drinking less. However, LTI’s manager thinks that the data points to a more nuanced story.

LTL

LTI’s performance still appears to be influenced by that of its largest exposure, LTL, which at the end of March 2026 accounted for 19.8% of the portfolio, down from 24.5% six months earlier. LTL has experienced investor outflows in recent years. Funds under management (FUM) at LTL have decreased to £9.8bn in September 2025, from a peak of £24.3bn in July 2021. Annual management fees make up almost 99% of the group’s total, and 80% of net profits are paid to shareholders in dividends. As such, LTL’s contribution to LTI’s revenues is significant.

One development amid declining FUM is the recent launch of a new international strategy (EAFE) focused on the developed world excluding the US, which sits alongside LTL’s four existing strategies spanning global, UK, Japan and North American equities. LTL tells us that this strategy has been under consideration for some time, but that current market valuations and growing demand for international equities made the timing particularly compelling.

Alongside the establishment of an International LLC (funded with balance sheet capital), a longstanding client also provided initial funding for the strategy through two segregated mandates. The strategy has launched with over $200m in AUM. The strategy will be co-managed by James Bullock and Ben van Leeuwen (profiles of whom can be found on page 16).

Performance

Direct comparisons with benchmarks and the global investment companies peer group may be difficult due to LTI’s investment policy and the concentrated nature of its portfolio. Figure 10 shows that LTI’s NAV has fallen over the past year relative to both its peer group and the MSCI World Index, as FUM at LTL has also declined and sentiment towards its software holdings appears to have been affected by concerns regarding AI disruption.

Figure 10: LTI NAV total return performance relative to benchmark and peer group¹

Despite the weaker performance over five years, LTI’s 10-year NAV total return remains higher than both the peer group and the benchmark, as shown in Figure 11. This may reflect the contribution of LTL in prior years.

Figure 11: Cumulative total return performance over periods ending 30 April 2026

Peer group analysis

Figure 12: Peer group comparative data as at 5 May 2026

Up-to-date information on LTI and its peers is available on our website

LTI is a constituent of the AIC’s Global sector, which currently comprises nine companies. LTI’s discount is the widest among the peer group, while its dividend yield is significantly higher than the peer group median, seemingly aided by its structure and revenue contribution from LTL. The ongoing charges ratio is at the top end of this peer group, which appears to reflect its small market cap (the smallest in the peer group).

Figure 13: Peer group cumulative NAV total return data as at 30 April 2026

Dividend

Figure 14: LTI dividend history

LTI’s dividend is primarily funded by the revenue income it receives from LTL, which accounts for around 72% of LTI’s total revenue. With FUM at LTL continuing to decline, further pressure on LTI’s dividend appears likely. For 2025, the dividend was £42 per share, down 18.4% on 2024. Further declines in LTL’s FUM could impact LTI’s future dividend, unless the board decides to draw upon revenue reserves, which appears unlikely.

Premium/(discount)

Figure 15: LTI discount over five years

LTI’s discount has moved within a range of 10.4% to 24.7% and averaged 17.5% over the 12 months ended 30 April 2026. As of publishing, the company’s discount was 15.6%.

As previously discussed, LTL’s quality-focused investing style appears to have been out of favour for some time and may have contributed to LTI’s wider discount, while the continued shrinking of FUM at LTL has also likely been a significant factor.

The board has indicated that it believes using share buybacks as a tool to reduce the discount would be ineffective. To fund a buyback programme, the company would need to sell existing quoted investments, which may result in an increase in LTL’s percentage weighting within LTI’s portfolio and an increased expense ratio for remaining shareholders.

Fees and costs

Investment management fee of 0.6% of the lower of market cap or NAV

Under the terms of the investment management agreement, Lindsell Train Limited is entitled to receive an annual fee of 0.6%, calculated on the lower of adjusted market capitalisation or adjusted NAV. In the year to 31 March 2025, the manager was paid £819,000 (2024: £976,000).

The manager is also entitled to receive a performance fee, which is calculated annually at a rate of 10% of the value of any positive relative performance versus the benchmark in a financial year. Relative performance is measured by taking the lower of the NAV or average market price, taking into account dividends, at the end of each financial year and comparing the percentage annual change with the total return of the benchmark. A performance fee will only be paid out if the annual change is both above the benchmark and is a positive figure. No performance fee has been paid since 2021.

For the year ended 31 March 2025, LTI’s ongoing charges ratio was 0.80% (2024: 0.83%).

Capital structure

LTI has a simple capital structure with one class of ordinary share in issue. Its ordinary shares have a premium main market listing on the London Stock Exchange and, as at 5 May 2026, there were 20,000,000 in issue and none held in treasury.

Gearing

LTI is permitted to borrow up to a maximum of 50% of NAV, but it does not currently use gearing, which may be due in part to the size and risk associated with the company’s unlisted investment in LTL.

Financial calendar

The trust’s year-end is 31 March. The annual results are typically released in June (interims in December) and its AGMs are generally held in September of each year. An annual dividend is typically paid in August.

Major shareholders

Figure 16: Major shareholders as at 5 May 2026

Management team

LTL is led by Michael Lindsell and Nick Train, who co-founded the business in 2000. The wider investment team comprises four members, all of whom are portfolio managers following promotions in March 2026.

Michael Lindsell

Michael co-founded LTL in 2000 and is the firm’s chief executive. He is the portfolio manager for Japanese equity portfolios and jointly manages global equity portfolios. Michael has over 40 years’ experience in investment management, including heading GT Management’s global and international funds. Following the acquisition of GT by Invesco in 1998, he was appointed head of the combined global product team. Michael has a degree in Zoology from the University of Bristol.

Nick Train

Nick co-founded LTL and is the firm’s chairman. He is the portfolio manager for UK equity portfolios and jointly manages global equity portfolios. Nick has over 40 years’ experience in investment management, including as head of global equities at M&G Investment Management. He previously spent 17 years at GT Management. Nick has a degree in Modern History from the University of Oxford.

James Bullock

James joined Lindsell Train in 2010 and is a portfolio manager, and has jointly managed global equity portfolios since 2015. He is also responsible for the North American Equity Fund. James has a Master’s degree in physics from the University of Oxford and a doctorate in Zoology from the University of Cambridge.

Madeline Wright

Madeline joined Lindsell Train in 2012 and was promoted to portfolio manager for the UK Equities fund this year. She has a degree in English Language and Literature from the University of Oxford and previously spent a semester as a visiting student at Yale University. After leaving Oxford, she studied in Japan for a year, where she learnt to speak the language to a high standard.

Alexander Windsor-Clive

Alexander joined Lindsell Train in 2016 and was promoted to portfolio manager of North American equities this year. Alexander has a degree in History from the University of Bristol.

Ben van Leeuwen

Ben joined Lindsell Train in 2019 and was promoted to portfolio manager of the recently launched international equities fund. He has a degree in English Language and Literature from the University of Oxford.

Board

LTI’s board comprises six non-executive directors. All are independent of the manager with the exception of Michael Lindsell. The company’s articles of association limit the aggregate fees payable to the directors to a total of £200,000 per annum, which is above the current fee levels.

Board policy states that all directors retire and offer themselves for re-election annually. Neither the chairman nor any other non-executive director is normally expected to serve for more than nine years, although this period may be extended for a limited time if it is considered to be in the interests of the company or shareholders.

As is illustrated in Figure 17, all of LTI’s directors have personal investments in the trust. Management believes this aligns directors’ interests with those of shareholders.

Figure 17: Directors

Roger Lambert (chair)

Roger Lambert was appointed chair of the board in January 2024. He has a 40-year career in investment banking, primarily with JPMorgan Cazenove, where he advised companies in the consumer and financial services sectors and has experience in corporate finance, public equity investments and public company boards. Roger was a non-executive director of Young & Co’s Brewery Plc, where he was the senior independent director and chair of the audit committee. He is currently chair of trustees of the Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund, a governor and chair of the finance & estates committee of King’s Schools, Taunton, and a trustee of the Wykeham Crown & Manor Trust and the Hestercombe Gardens Trust. Roger has an MA in History from Oxford University.

David MacLellan (chair of the audit committee)

David MacLellan is chair of the audit committee. He founded and chairs RJD Partners, and is currently a director and chairs the audit committee at J&J Denholm Limited, Aquila European Renewables Plc, as well as being chairman of Custodian Property Income REIT Plc. He was previously a director of a number of public and private companies, including John Laing Infrastructure Fund, where he was latterly chairman. David is a past council member of the British Venture Capital Association and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. He has a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Edinburgh.

Nicholas Allan (non-executive director)

Nicholas Allan is chair of the nomination committee. He has experience in investment management, having been a founder of Boyer Allan Investment Management and joint fund manager of the Boyer Allan Pacific Fund Inc. Prior to that, he worked in various roles at UK merchant bank Kleinwort Benson and its affiliates in London, Boston, New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong in the 1980s and 90s. This included setting up a pan-Asian securities business and running its global emerging markets securities area. Nicholas has an MA in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University.

Helena Vinnicombe (senior independent director)

Helena Vinnicombe was appointed to the board in 2022. She is a member of the advisory committee for M&G Charifund, Charibond and Charity Multi-Asset fund and is a non-executive director of Lowland Investment Company plc, where she also serves as a member of the audit and remuneration committees. She also provides independent investment consulting to clients with long-term investment objectives, typically charities and family trusts. Helena was previously a director at Smith & Williamson, where she spent most of her career, focused on private client investment management. Additionally, she is a trustee and chair of the investment committee for the charity NESTA and a trustee for The Child Health Research CIO. She has an MA in Modern Languages from Cambridge University.

Sian Hansen (non-executive director)

Sian Hansen was appointed to the board in 2025. She has a background in investment banking and policy development, holding a portfolio of nonexecutive board positions including at Worldwide Healthcare Trust Plc. Sian finished her term on the JP Morgan Multi Asset Growth and Income Plc board in March 2024 and was on the board of Pacific Assets Trust Plc from 2016 to 2025. Until October 2023, she held the position of chief operating officer at the CT Group, a global strategic consultancy group. Prior to this, she served as executive director of the Legatum Institute and earlier in her career, she was managing director of Policy Exchange, a UK policy think tank.

Previous publications

To read our previous notes on LTI – click on the links below or visit our website.

Figure 18: Previous publications

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Marten & Co (which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority) was paid to produce this note on Lindsell Train Investment Trust Plc.

This note is for information purposes only and is not intended to encourage the reader to deal in the security or securities mentioned within it. Marten & Co is not authorised to give advice to retail clients. The research does not have regard to the specific investment objectives financial situation and needs of any specific person who may receive it.

The analysts who prepared this note are not constrained from dealing ahead of it but, in practice, and in accordance with our internal code of good conduct, will refrain from doing so for the period from which they first obtained the information necessary to prepare the note until one month after the note’s publication. Nevertheless, they may have an interest in any of the securities mentioned within this note.

This note has been compiled from publicly available information. This note is not directed at any person in any jurisdiction where (by reason of that person’s nationality, residence or otherwise) the publication or availability of this note is prohibited.

Accuracy of Content: Whilst Marten & Co uses reasonable efforts to obtain information from sources which we believe to be reliable and to ensure that the information in this note is up to date and accurate, we make no representation or warranty that the information contained in this note is accurate, reliable or complete. The information contained in this note is provided by Marten & Co for personal use and information purposes generally. You are solely liable for any use you may make of this information. The information is inherently subject to change without notice and may become outdated. You, therefore, should verify any information obtained from this note before you use it.

No Advice: Nothing contained in this note constitutes or should be construed to constitute investment, legal, tax or other advice.

No Representation or Warranty: No representation, warranty or guarantee of any kind, express or implied is given by Marten & Co in respect of any information contained on this note.

Exclusion of Liability: To the fullest extent allowed by law, Marten & Co shall not be liable for any direct or indirect losses, damages, costs or expenses incurred or suffered by you arising out or in connection with the access to, use of or reliance on any information contained on this note. In no circumstance shall Marten & Co and its employees have any liability for consequential or special damages.

Governing Law and Jurisdiction: These terms and conditions and all matters connected with them, are governed by the laws of England and Wales and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. If you access this note from outside the UK, you are responsible for ensuring compliance with any local laws relating to access.

No information contained in this note shall form the basis of, or be relied upon in connection with, any offer or commitment whatsoever in any jurisdiction.

Investment Performance Information: Please remember that past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future and that the value of shares and the income from them can go down as well as up. Exchange rates may also cause the value of underlying overseas investments to go down as well as up. Marten & Co may write on companies that use gearing in a number of forms that can increase volatility and, in some cases, to a complete loss of an investment.