In short: Second-worst performer at −19.6%. A UK serial acquirer of scientific-instrument businesses — the model the archive admires elsewhere — but named here only on the performance card, with no commentary.
In short: DOWNGRADED HOLD → SELL — the only Sell in the issue. "Scientific instruments company. We sold Judges Scientific because we see better opportunities elsewhere." That completes the 31 May position switch, where the whole holding was sold at 42.5 GBP and the proceeds split into Kelly Partners and Topicus; the rating now catches up with the transaction.
In short: SOLD IN FULL — all 680 shares, limit 42.5 GBP (4,400 pence), bought March 2025. The reason is opportunity cost, not deterioration: "I still like Judges Scientific and I think it will continue to do well… Because I think there are other serial acquirers available at similar prices that have better growth opportunities." The evidence: "The company failed to grow since September 2022", with the next three years' expectations no better, while still at a 17.5x forward PE — "not very cheap for a company that is expected to not grow between 2022 and 2028." Causes: US federal research-funding cuts, Chinese competition on price and product, and dependence on universities and publicly funded labs. Corroborated first-hand: founder David Cicurel said "the challenges Judges Scientific is currently facing are the most severe in its history." Three key learnings published — a large acquisition by a serial acquirer is usually a bad sign (Geotek, May 2022, £80m, "suffering from the lumpiness of irregular coring expeditions"); reconsider when the founder steps down as CEO (Cicurel, February 2026); and limit exposure to government-budget-dependent customers. "We bought the company in March 2025 and didn't have much fun during our period as a shareholder. It's time to cut the weeds and water our flowers."
Judges Scientific buys small makers of specialist laboratory instruments and runs them as a group. The entire holding — 680 shares — is being sold at a limit of 42.5 pounds, fourteen months after it was bought.
The reason is not that the company is bad. The write-up says plainly that he still likes it and expects it to do well. The reason is that the money can buy more growth elsewhere for the same price.
The problem is that the business has not grown at all since September 2022, and forecasts show no growth through 2028 either — six flat years. Yet the shares still cost 17.5 times next year's profits, which is a price for a growing company. Three causes: American federal research budgets are being cut and universities are the customers; Chinese competitors are undercutting on price and improving their products; and the customer base is concentrated in publicly funded laboratories. The founder himself said the difficulties are the worst in the company's history.
Three lessons are drawn, and they are worth keeping. When a company that grows by making many small acquisitions suddenly makes one large one, that is usually a warning — here it was Geotek, bought for £80 million in 2022, whose earnings swing with irregular seabed-drilling expeditions. When a founder stops being chief executive, revisit the whole case — Cicurel stepped down in February 2026. And be careful with companies whose customers are funded by a government budget, because that budget is a political decision.
In short: Named as a purchase mistake, five days before it is sold. "Buying Judges Scientific in April 2025. The entire market for scientific instruments (especially Judges) is struggling right now." No defence is offered and no recovery case is made — which distinguishes it from the Novo entry in the same list. The full exit follows on 31 May: all 680 shares at a 42.5 GBP limit, with the key learnings set out there. Read together, this post is the announcement of the conclusion and the next one is the execution.
Judges Scientific buys small companies that make specialist laboratory instruments and runs them as a group. It was bought for the portfolio in April 2025 and is named here, in public, as a mistake.
The reason given is that the whole market it serves is struggling — scientific instruments generally, and Judges in particular. No recovery case is offered and no defence is attempted, which is the tell: of the three mistakes listed in this article, this is the only one where the conclusion has already been reached rather than merely admitted.
Five days later the position is sold in full. The detailed reasoning appears there — stagnant growth since 2022, dependence on US federal research funding that is being cut, and a founder who stepped down as chief executive in February 2026.
In short: Rated HOLD in the portfolio table and BUY in the 49-stock list — the issue's clearest internal contradiction, nine days after it was named "the most likely sell candidate". It also appears in the text's own list of "14 out of the 18 companies that we own [that] are a 'Buy' right now." Model figures identical in both places: EPS growth 10.0%, dividend 2.5%, FWD PE 23.0 against a fair exit 20.0, expected return 11.2%, fair value 54.0 against 46.6 = 13.8% undervalued. Medium conviction.
In short: Named as the single most likely sale. One of three "Not sure" answers on the ten-year test, and the only one acted on: "I don't think we'll sell Novo Nordisk or Evolution AB in the near future. On the other hand, we are considering selling Judges Scientific", repeated in the conclusion as "the most likely sell candidate: Judges Scientific." The diagnosis is unchanged from nine days earlier — US research-funding cuts, Chinese competition, and dependence on universities and publicly funded labs — with the same unresolved question: "whether these problems are temporary or structural."
Judges Scientific owns a collection of small firms that make specialist scientific instruments for laboratories. Its problem is its customers: American research budgets are being cut, Chinese rivals are getting cheaper and better, and an unusually large share of its sales go to universities and publicly funded labs — exactly the buyers who have stopped ordering.
The decisive moment comes from a test borrowed from Warren Buffett: would you be happy to own this if the stock market closed for ten years and you could not sell? Applied to all eighteen holdings, fifteen got a "yes". Three got "not sure" — and of those three, this is the one named for sale. "The most likely sell candidate: Judges Scientific."
Worth noting how slowly the verdict travelled. It was still rated Hold a week later and still in the portfolio in August. A "most likely sell candidate" is a ranking, not a trade.
In short: Medium conviction. "Judges Scientific is a tough one. A very tough one." Three named pressures on the life-science instrument market: a US research-funding slowdown from federal budget cuts, increasing Chinese competition on price and offering, and customer concentration in universities and publicly funded labs. "The big question is whether these problems are temporary or structural… we are open to selling our position in JDG for another, better opportunity." Framed explicitly as opportunity cost, not as a broken business.
Judges Scientific buys small companies that make specialist scientific instruments — the kind of equipment a university physics or materials lab needs and cannot get anywhere else — and then owns them for the long run.
Its customers are the problem. American federal research budgets are being cut, so labs are not ordering. Chinese manufacturers are offering cheaper alternatives that are getting better. And an unusually large share of Judges' revenue comes from universities and publicly funded institutes, which are exactly the customers affected.
The honest position taken here is that nobody yet knows whether that is a bad couple of years or a permanent change. Rather than defend the position, it is put on notice: money tied up in Judges is money not available for something better, and "we are open to selling our position in JDG for another, better opportunity." Nine days later it is named as the single most likely sale.
In short: BUY on the 45-stock sheet and in the body's list of fourteen owned Buys — but HOLD in the portfolio valuation table. The contradiction is in the issue itself and is left as published. The numbers: 25.0x forward against a 26.8x five-year average (only 6.7% under), a 10.6% expected return and a +7.5pp reverse-DCF margin. Also the tenth-worst watchlist performer year to date at −31.8%.
In short: Disclosed holding, category "Assets that last forever": a serial acquirer of precision scientific-instrument makers. The stickiness argument is an installed base rather than a network — "the instruments last decades in labs, and once a researcher depends on one, the consumables and servicing revenue follows for life."
In short: A ~3.75% weight and roughly −$17,500 unrealised — a large loss on one of the smallest positions. Disclosed by weight only; the name later flagged as the portfolio's single sell candidate on 28 April.
In short: BUY, and a portfolio holding. 19.9x forward against a 26.8x average (25.7% under), an 11.9% expected return, a £70.8 fair value against £57.8, and a +4.6pp reverse-DCF margin. A flat five-year CAGR (−0.7%) against a 14.9% ten-year — the name flagged as the portfolio's one sell candidate on 28 April.
In short: BUY. Weight 3.5%, performance −26.2% — the worst performer in Part I. Three causes, all end-market: "US research funding slowdown: Federal budget cuts are reducing research spending"; "Increasing Chinese competition"; and "Customer concentration risk: heavy dependence on universities and publicly funded labs." Plus a succession, disclosed in full: "in February, founder David Cicurel will step down as CEO after more than 20 years. He will remain with the company as Non-Executive Chair. Tim Prestidge… will take over" — 22 years at Halma and Renishaw, "both of which use a similar 'buy-and-build' model", a PhD in theoretical physics, and at Judges since early 2023 "allowing for a smooth multi-year transition." Valuation: 19.9x forward against a 26.7x average ✅, Earnings Growth Model 11.9% ✅, reverse DCF needing 9.2% against a long-term estimate of only 6.6% — marked as questionable. "Tim Prestidge is the perfect man to follow up David Cicurel."
Judges Scientific buys small British makers of specialised laboratory instruments and runs them as a group. Its customers are universities and publicly funded labs.
That customer base is the problem right now. American federal research budgets have been cut, Chinese competitors are pricing aggressively, and the whole life-sciences equipment sector is weak — which is why this is the worst performer in this half of the portfolio, down 26%.
The bigger event is a handover. David Cicurel, who founded and ran the company for more than twenty years, becomes non-executive chairman in February; Tim Prestidge takes over. The case for him is that he has spent 22 years at Halma and Renishaw, two British companies that grow the same way — by buying and keeping small specialists — and has already been inside Judges for three years. Founder transitions are where roll-ups usually break, so this is the thing to watch rather than the funding cycle.
One honest flag: working backwards from the price, the shares need cash flow to grow 9.2% a year, against a long-term forecast of 6.6%. Slegers marks that as questionable and keeps the Buy anyway, on the strength of the succession.
In short: BUY — bought 4 March 2025, 3.6% of the portfolio, about −$16,000 — the fourth-worst position by dollars, on a position under a year old.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.