Learning Technologies AGM and Brexit

I went to the Learning Technologies (LTG) Annual General Meeting yesterday, only to find my son Alex was there also (we both hold the shares). So we did a joint report which can be found on the ShareSoc Members Network. What follows are a few particularly interesting points from it.

LTG was a workplace digital learning solutions provider up to the beginning of last month when it announced it was to buy PeopleFluent – a cloud based talent management platform. Chief executive Jonathan Satchell described the deal as “transformative” for LTG’s US presence and that is surely the case. He also noted that “learning and talent are closely aligned” with cross-selling opportunities adding possibilities for further growth.

When the formal business was considered the first resolution was to accept the annual accounts and directors report. This had a surprise vote of 56 million proxies against (12%). I asked why the large vote against a resolution that normally gets a high percentage “yes” vote. Chief exec Jonathan Satchell replied that ISS (a proxy advisory firm) had recommended shareholders vote against the resolution on the grounds that there was insufficient disclosure in the Directors remuneration report, and shareholders had not been given a chance to vote on directors’ remuneration. Jon felt the complaint by ISS was overblown, but that LTG had discussed the issue with ISS and will look to improve disclosure next year. Jon noted it was not necessary to hold a vote on remuneration although I pointed out it was preferable to do so and many AIM companies did have remuneration votes. ISS had also noted that the Chairman Andrew Brode was on the remuneration committee, which they didn’t like. Jon did say that Andrew would be more than willing to give this role up and so in the coming year Jon said to expect a change on this committee.

A shareholder asked if the £13.3m Civil Service contract was a one off. Jon replied that there is scope for a one year extension to the contract but at the moment the accounts are based on the contract ending with no extension.

I asked about the PeopleFluent acquisition and questioned the use of a “cash box” transaction as this ignores shareholder votes in prior resolutions. A cash box placing allows a company to issue new shares by bypassing pre-emption requirements – meaning without shareholder approval. It works by a company forming a new subsidiary into which it puts cash via a placing and then buys that shell, paying with shares priced at whatever level it deems suitable. In effect it sidesteps the legal requirements of Company Law, and the resolutions previously passed by shareholders re share issuance.

Jon replied that LTG was up against US private equity and it was felt this was the best way to get the right amount of funds needed in a timely fashion to give the highest quality offer LTG could make. Comment: with the Chairman and CEO holding over 45% of the shares any vote would have surely gone through so it may not be so prejudicial to shareholders interests. But it sets a bad legal precedent as I think such transactions should be made illegal. Apparently Numis, their Nomad/Broker, suggested they do this. Otherwise it was a placing with no open offer which prejudices private shareholders although the discount to the previous share price was minor.]

Jon talked about the recent Pluralsight IPO, a similar US business. The company lost $90m on $160m revenue. Valuation $2Billion. Comment: this is obviously a “hot” sector for investors.

Summary: The enthusiasm of the CEO for the future prospects of the business were very evident and this seems to have been communicated to shareholders in recent weeks. The share price has been motoring upwards so it’s now on a prospective p/e of 44 according to Stockopedia. Certainly the high recurring revenue feature of the PeopleFluent business is positive as I always like companies with high recurring revenues and I said that in the meeting. However there are significant risks in such a major acquisition of a US business where there may be cultural and management style differences. The business also seems to have some difficulties and they have already be making some management changes.

In addition to that the large civil service contract in the UK will probably not be extended – or at most by a year – so historic revenue may not be representative of future revenue, and in addition the change to adopt IFRS 15 (see page 12 of the Annual Report) will impact 2018 financial figures. The corporate governance and the way the placing was done are also negatives. In summary there are a number of negative aspects in this business and potential high risks from the acquisitions that have been made (not just the latest one). The enthusiasm of investors for this business might be ignoring the substantial risks now associated with it so investors should keep a close eye on the progress of the acquisitions and their associated restructuring.

But as always, I learned a lot about this business and the individuals involved from attending the AGM. There were less than a dozen ordinary shareholders at the meeting which is disappointing given the opportunity it provides to quiz the management.

Brexit: I have not said much on the hot topic of Brexit of late although it’s no secret that I am generally in favour of it. The regulations that have come out of Europe such as MIFID II, the Shareholder Rights Directive and GDPR might have had good intentions behind them but in practice the detail regulations that result have been horribly complex and bureaucratic. The result has been very high costs imposed on many businesses and often with ineffective results. The key problem has been bureaucrats in Brussels with little knowledge of the real world and the business environment in the UK designing regulations without adequate consultation (or ignoring feedback submitted) and producing gobbledygook which few people understand. GDPR had positive objectives but the law of unintended consequences has resulted in people receiving hundreds of pointless emails.

The latest example of ridiculous claims of the cost of Brexit was the statement by Jon Thompson the head of HMRC that the “maximum facilitation” (Max Fac) option could cost UK businesses as much as £20 billion per year. This is apparently based on the cost of filling out customs declarations (200 million per annum at a cost of £32.50 each, plus other form filling according to the FT). This seems to assume that forms are filled out manually when in reality that can be done by computer software surely. Business might also look to reduce the costs by bulking up orders, or simply choosing not to export or import, i.e. to do business in different ways or with different people.

Whether Max Fac is a sensible option it’s difficult to say without a lot more evidence but staying in the Customs Union simply to avoid a hard border in Ireland does not seem to make sense because it means our trading policies and practices will be dictated by the EU. That’s not what people voted for in Brexit. People voted for political and governmental independence. Many people accept there may be some extra cost involved as a result but scare stories about the costs are not helpful.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s