give the dog a bone
05 May 2015
Re: Risk . My only question is whether this is dishonesty, incompetence, or both...Ohh! how could you ? isn't the fragrant massively overpaid CEO up for some top award.Methinks it would suit the Board better to call the ineffective /non working SMT Board in and give them a good talking to start performing. There's been enough creative accounting and positioning the auditors / professional advisers must be rubbing their hands in glee at the massive easy fees. . The tracking the ftse isn't exactly a science nor does it require any adept skill.
trader jack
05 May 2015
Re: Risk The latest Annual Report states on page 92 note 22 that “The Company provided letters to ATS and ATI confirming ongoing support for at least 12 months from the date of the annual financial statements were signed, to make sufficient funds available if needed to enable them to continue trading, meet commitments and not to seek repayments of any amounts outstanding.” This is a potential time-bomb. Should another financial disaster strike the country these guarantees could result in the total failure of Alliance Trust. Impossible, I hear you say, but is it? Let me remind you of three well renowned institutions that have failed since the start of this millennium: Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS and Northern Rock. Had you been asked to forecast the possible causes and effects of the next financial crisis 10-15 years ago would you have envisaged these institutions failing even in your wildest dreams?
sansione
05 May 2015
Re: Risk That you are spot on!!
New pilgrim
04 May 2015
Re: Risk All very puzzling.The trust fund contains substantial bond and gilt holdings that have a lower yield to maturity than 4.28% . Bonds to a value of about £190 million are now held within the AT shareholders fund. Borrowing at higher cost than the return on existing fixed interest holdings of similar term looks like gross irresponsibility, and if done with intent, a fraud on the shareholders.AT has been 'growing' ATI by investing AT shareholder funds as seed money into ATI. One possible explanation is that AT has borrowed money, and has then deployed it to purchase bonds into the new funds established in ATI, the return to maturity on the bonds and gilts purchased being in many cases less than the cost of the money.Note that placing AT funds into ATI OEICs provides a possible route for concealing management costs. Examination of the ATI OEICs now held within the AT fund shows that the OEICs contain not only fixed interest holdings, not declared elsewhere, but also many of the same equities as are held and listed in the main list of equities. The actual resulting percentage holding of some equities varies by as much as about 10% from the percentages specified in the list of holdings.Whatever this is, it is not plain dealing in the interest of shareholders. My only question is whether this is dishonesty, incompetence, or both. Is there any other explanation? In any case, it needs to be clarified, and to be challenged where necessary.What do you think?
sansione
04 May 2015
Re: Risk I doubt it. That would just have been the price at the time. Pity about their timing though - they would get it much cheaper than that now!!
Wynford2
04 May 2015
Risk Another straw in the wind:“In June 2014 we arranged £100m of borrowings, fixed over 15 years at 4.28%……..The weighted average interest payable on all borrowing facilities will increase from 1.61% to 2.26% as at the date of funding.”This seems to have been overlooked as just poor negotiating skills, but they can’t be stupid. So why as high as 4.28%? A 15 year gilt yield is half of this. The lenders must have seen risk in the whole business which isn’t readily apparent to an ATST shareholder.
LK Hyman
04 May 2015
Re: £3 million hush money Dog,"The yanks must be having a great laff at our expense."They've had to bear their share of the £3 million!LKH at the LK Wash & Valet
New pilgrim
04 May 2015
Re: Alliance Trust faces a big squeeze after... Note, the link given previously does not give the discussion which is at least as valuable as the article. Try this instead![link]
New pilgrim
03 May 2015
A reminder from the recent past. Please help?. The following quotation refers to the situation in 2011 and refers to the earlier activist intervention by Laxey Partners. Quotation starts:<< Laxey Partners has also called for a change to the shareholder enfranchisement facility savings scheme to make it fairer. The current set-up means shareholders' shares are voted even if they have not instructed a vote to be cast.In a letter to shareholders back in February, Michael A Haxby, director of Laxey Partners, said: "If you hold shares through Alliance Trust Savings and have not voted on a resolution, then unless you have specifically opted out of the SEF your shares will still have been voted on your behalf without you being notified."In May, shareholders will be able to vote on two resolutions proposed by Laxey Partners at the trust's AGM.Alliance Trust said it had a very strong year, with third party assets under management rising significantly, from £12 million to £83 million by the year end and reaching £100 million since then. Losses at Alliance Trust Savings had also been reduced by 30%.>> Quotation ends.My first question is does the Alliance Trust Board still vote the shares held via ATS for which it has no instruction or do we know if this practice has now been discontinued?The second point is an observation. The situation of Alliance Trust now in 2015, in terms of its direction and management, is far worse than it was four years ago. Over five years the third party assets managed by Alliance Trust through its subsidiaries have increased from £12 million to £9 billion. The boards plan for the net five years is to increase third party assets to over £55 billion. Surely, this is madness?The part played by third party assets has already been expanded from being a minor sideline, a facility granted to shareholders, to being the principal business activity. AT now holds £9 billion of customer and client funds alongside the £3 billion of shareholder funds in the investment trust. Not to mention a staff of 270 employees, needed primarily for the financial service business.This expansion of the in-house financial services business is completely incompatible with the normal operation of an investment trust. Investment trusts are pooled, risk-spreading investment vehicles that invest in a broad range of shares, securities and other assets and use professional managers to manage their investments. Note that financial service businesses are high risk businesses. They are not intrinsically profitable or successful, and there is no reason to suppose that AT management will prove more more successful than the other dedicated players in this competitive market sector.The consequence that the shareholders funds are now wholly exposed to the risks of the financial services subsidiaries. Shareholders funds provide the financial security for the customers, clients and employees of the subsidiaries.Combining an investment trust with a financial services business in this way substantially destroys the value of the investment trust as a means of diversifying risk. It transforms Alliance Trust from being a reasonably safe investment to being a relatively high risk bet on the financial services industry. The results of the recent AGM appear inconclusive. Shareholders were denied the opportunity of voting, and the speeches from the podium did not indicate any recognition of the need to change direction. In fact the plans for the further major expansion of the financial services subsidiaries look set to lead the Company ever deeper into the mire.Elliot Advisors have agreed to let the Company proceed for the next year without their further intervention. However, as a small shareholder and pensioner, I do not believe this is in the interest of shareholders. A shareholder action group has been proposed to press the Company to reconsider its reckless course. ShareSoc have offered support, and ATSAG (or Alliance Trust Shareholders
Ben Alligin
01 May 2015
Alliance Trust faces a big squeeze after AGM u-turn [link]
give the dog a bone
30 Apr 2015
£3 million hush money incredible that the shareholders have to trump up an extortionate £3 million to buy the silence of the Americans for a year. The yanks must be having a great laff at our expense. Meanwhile I can foresee a bleak year ahead as the SMT sign themselves the best contracts and exit packages all paid for courtesy of the shareholders. Surely there must be some regulation that forbids this plundering ? - it's too late after the event to try and stop 'em. Look at the Goodman , Leahy and their cohorts - all off to the sun with massive payouts for failed performance.
LK Hyman
30 Apr 2015
Re: Today's AGM Jack,Yes, Vulganus is Blighty-bound as I write. I have little doubt that Michael Fallon will win, though I fear that his ministerial career may hit the buffers for the next five years.LKH on the flybridge tracking steadily south west, Vlieland off the port bow
trader jack
30 Apr 2015
Re: Today's AGM Oh LKH how could you,The ever fragrant KGC on Vulganus? Well, she would be the admiral and captain rolled into one, the best you could hope for is the post of cabin boy (two romping together in a hammock -could that work? the thought fills me with dread.) Given the way she seems to treat the functionaries under her how does the job of scraping barnacles off the keel grab you?Madame Forsaken seems admirably (have I done what you do there?) suited to a role as a lifebelt.I trust that you will wash up on these shores in time to vote for and cheer Michale Fallon to victory next Thursday?
LK Hyman
30 Apr 2015
Re: Today's AGM ITDYA,"who else would employ them after this?"The life coach position on board Vulganus is currently vacant ... though, come to think of it, I suspect that KGC might become tiring after a bit. She has the determined look of a woman perpetually convinced of her own entitlement.LKH on the flybridge tracking steadily south west
In the dark yet again
30 Apr 2015
Re: Today's AGM trader,Spot on the money - shareholders money to support their entrenched position and, as a result, their positions should be untenable...... but I fear they will not walk since who else would employ them after this?Regards,ITDYA, glad all mine are in a SIPP so no CGT issues when I offload.
