Author: rogerwlawson

Tesco and Barclays Legal Cases; Rent Controls and Telford Homes

A few events transpired last week which I missed commenting on due to spending some days in bed with a high temperature. Here’s a catch-up.

The remaining prosecutions of former Tesco (TSCO) executives for the accounting scandal in 2014 that cost the company £320 million and resulted in the company signing a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and paying a big fine has concluded. The defendants were found not guilty. The prosecutions of other executives were previously halted by the judge on the grounds that they had no case to answer. Under the DPA, Tesco were also forced to compensate affected shareholders.

Everyone is asking why Tesco agreed to the DPA, at a cost of £130 million, when it would seem they had a credible defense as no wrongdoing by individuals has been confirmed. The defendants were also highly critical of the prosecution on flimsy evidence that destroyed their health and careers. This looks like another example of how the UK regulatory system is ineffective and too complicated. The only winners seem to be lawyers.

Another case that only got into court last week was against former Barclays (BARC) CEO John Varley and 3 colleagues. This relates to the fund raising by the company back in 2008 – another example of how slow these legal cases progress in the UK. This case is not about illegal financial assistance given to Qatari investors as one might expect, those charges were dropped, but about the failure to disclose commissions paid to those investors as part of the deal and not publicly disclosed. The defendants deny the charges.

Comment: this long-running saga seems to stem from the Government’s annoyance over Barclays avoidance of participation in the refinancing of banks at the time. Lloyds and RBS ended up part-owned by the Government, much to the disadvantage of their shareholders. Barclays shareholders (I was one at the time) were very pleased they managed to avoid the Government interference, precipitated by the Government actually changing the capital ratios required of banks. Barclays were desperate for the Qatari funds of at least one £ billion with one Barclays manager saying “They’ve got us by the balls….”.

Will this case conclude with a conviction, after a few millions of pounds spent on lawyers’ fees? I rather doubt it. And even if a guilty verdict is reached, how severe will be the likely penalty? Bearing in mind that the damage suffered by investors as a result seems minimal, i.e. it’s purely a technical breach of the regulations, it seems both pointless and excessive to pursue it after ten years have elapsed. Again the only winners seem to be lawyers.

One amusing aspect of this case was the grim “mug-shots” of 3 of the defendants attending court that appeared in the Financial Times. It was clearly a cold day and one of them was wearing a beanie hat. Is this the new sartorial style for professional gentlemen? Perhaps so as my doctor turned up wearing one to attend my sick-bed. Clearly I may need to revise by views on what hats to wear and when.

One has to ask: Are the cases of Tesco and Barclays good examples of English justice? Prosecutions after many years since the events took place while the people prosecuted have their lives put on hold, their health damaged and with potentially crippling legal costs. This is surely not the best way of achieving justice for investors. Justice needs to be swift if it is to be an effective deterrent and should enable people to move on with their lives. Complexity of the financial regulations makes high quality justice difficult to achieve. Reform is required to make them simpler, and investigations need to be completed more quickly.

Investors might not have noticed that London Mayor Sadiq Khan is going to include a policy of introducing rent controls in his 2020 election manifesto. Rent controls have never worked to control rents and in the 1950s resulted in “Rackmanism” where tenants were bullied out of controlled properties. It also led to a major decline in private rented housing as landlords’ profits disappeared so they withdrew from the market. That made the housing shortages in the 1960s and 70s much worse. The current housing shortage in London would likely be exacerbated if Sadiq Khan has his way as private landlords would withdraw from the market, leaving tenants still unable to buy although it might depress house prices somewhat.

But the real damage would be on the construction of new “buy-to-let” properties which would fall away. Institutions have been moving into this market in London and construction companies such as Telford Homes (TEF) have been growing their “build-to-rent” business in London.

Sadiq Khan is proposing a policy that he would require Government legislation to implement, which with the current Government he would not get. No doubt he is hoping for a change in that regard. Or is it simply his latest political gambit to get re-elected? In the last election he promised to freeze public transport fares as a vote winner, so he clearly has learnt from that experience. But he’s probably already damaging the private rented sector.

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.

Patisserie – and How to Avoid Disasters

The events at Patisserie (CAKE) have been well covered in both the national media and financial press so I won’t repeat them here. This article will therefore concentrate on how to avoid such companies in the future. The case of Patisserie is very similar to those of Globo in 2015 and Torex Retail in 2007. All three were large AIM companies that went into administration after fraud was discovered. These were not just cases of over-optimistic or misleading financial accounts, but deliberate false accounting. Executives of Torex Retail received jail terms and Globo is still being investigated. Note that such criminal cases take years to come to a conclusion. Both Globo and Patisserie were audited by the same firm (Grant Thornton). Such cases can happen not just in relatively small AIM companies, but also large ones – for example Polly Peck.

Ordinary shareholders received zero from the administration of Torex Retail and Globo and it is very likely it will be the same from Patisserie. The only glimmer of light is that it does look as though a normal sale process is being followed by the administrators and there is at least one enthusiastic bidder for the remaining stores. There is also the prospect of a tax refund from HMRC because it is clear the fraud has been running for some years so Patisserie has been paying tax on imaginary profits. But the bank overdrafts/loans need paying, loans from Luke Johnson need repaying (which incredibly seem to rank ahead of the banks), trade creditors need paying, staff need paying, HMRC needs paying and the administrators will run up the usual enormous bills no doubt so I doubt there will be much, if anything, left after those distributions. There usually is not.

Legal action against the former directors who were culpable in these events by regulatory authorities is highly likely. For example, it is a crime (market abuse) to publish false accounts under the Financial Services and Markets Act so that would be one basis. Investors who invested in the company on the basis of those false accounts should submit a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and encourage them to take such action.

Are there possible legal actions by investors to recover their losses? Perhaps and I know at least two people who are talking to solicitors about that. But such legal actions are very expensive and depend on a) Identifying defendants with sufficient assets to meet both the claim and legal costs; b) Having sufficient standing to do so. Unfortunately shareholders would probably have to do it via a “derivative action” which means applying to the court to force the administrator to pursue such a claim. Bearing in mind administrations are often relatively short term, and it will take years to conclude regulatory investigations and actions, there might be a problem there.

Who could be targeted? The auditors possibly although they will probably say they were misled by the company directors (bank accounts not disclosed, etc). Luke Johnson perhaps although he clearly denies previous knowledge of the fraud and pursuing him for breach of his responsibilities as a director might be difficult – however he does have the assets having taken well over £20 million out of the company in share sales over the years. Former finance director Chris Marsh sold shares worth £8.42 million in 2018 while former CEO Paul May sold shares worth £14.34 million in that year it is worth noting. They both appear to have been near the centre of the fraud but culpability clearly will need to be proved. They have yet to comment in public on the matter.

Were the share sales by those two executive directors a sign that all was not well at the company? Perhaps but Luke Johnson was not selling in 2018 and these sales were the result of share option exercises from LTIPs which executives often sell, partly to meet tax demands.

So how to avoid such fraudulent companies from damaging your wealth in future? From experience I can offer the following advice, and you will see why Patisserie side-stepped all the warning signs:

  1. Try to invest in directors who you feel you can trust. Luke Johnson had a very public reputation in the investment world which he was no doubt keen to protect. Indeed his actions to try and bail-out the business when the fraud was discovered shows exactly that, although institutional investors who took up the rescue rights issue will be none too happy. His fellow executive directors were a long-established team and hence should have been trustworthy. Make sure you take opportunities to meet the management.
  2. Do the financial analysis. Read the book “The Signs Were There” which I have covered in a previous article – it tells you where to look. For example, do the profits turn into cash? But if the cash on the balance sheet is a lie, as at both Patisserie and Globo, it does not help. Does the company not pay dividends when it could, or make decisions to raise more debt when it does not apparently need it or provide good justification? That was the what crystalised my views on Globo.
  3. Look at who else is investing or commenting on the company, e.g. Chris Boxall of Fundamental Asset Management, a very experienced small cap investor, or Paul Scott of Stockopedia who recently said “Quindell, Globo and Carillion were easy to spot a mile off – indeed we warned investors of all 3 long before they blew up. Patisserie Valerie however, appeared to be a wonderful, cash generative business”. Because I follow what others are saying and pay attention, I never invested in Torex Retail and I did not lose money on Globo despite holding some shares until the end. But Patisserie fooled pretty well everyone.
  4. Research the product or service offering. Some people say they were wary because when they visited the shops, they were not busy and did not like the cakes. That was not my experience after a number of visits to different locations.
  5. Read the IPO prospectus for AIM companies. It tells you a lot more than you can read in the Annual Reports and is legally required under AIM rules to be available on their web site.
  6. Invest in steps and not at the IPO so you can build confidence in the company. Private investors have the advantage of being able to do that. After all it’s unusual for frauds to run for years without being discovered by someone – rarely by auditors though. I first invested in Patisserie in 2017 and built up a small holding in stages following the share price momentum. But this was only limited protection and it appears the fraud had been going on for many years at Patisserie.
  7. Have a diversified portfolio so one company can go bust and it does not undermine your overall returns. If you invest in large cap companies which may be less risky, perhaps 10 to 20 shares are sufficient diversification. Throwing in a few investment trusts or other funds will help as they are intrinsically diversified. But if you are investing in AIM shares you need a lot more. By having a large portfolio of shares in terms of numbers of holdings the damage to my portfolio from the administration has been a loss of 0.9% of my portfolio value. That’s less than the portfolio varies from day to day on some days. I have spoken to a number of investors who bet their houses or life savings on one share, e.g. Northern Rock or the Royal Bank of Scotland rights issue. One at least went bankrupt. Don’t be so daft.
  8. Monitor news flow on a company and unusual share price movements. But at Patisserie there was really nothing unusual until the date the shares were suspended.

I hope the above comments help investors to avoid the dogs and complete frauds of the investment world. Some of these avoidance techniques help you to avoid not just outright frauds but general financial mismanagement by company directors.

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.

Placings at Gordon Dadds and Blue Prism

There were two placings announced yesterday. The first was by legal firm Gordon Dadds (GOR). I held a very few shares in the company. This company had already annoyed me by suspending the listing of the shares for several months while they finalised an acquisition deal. Totally unnecessary. If Northern Rock could remain listed while in their death throws, the propensity to suspend shares simply because there is more uncertainty about the business is not justified. This annoyance also arose at Patisserie (CAKE) recently. Investors can decide for themselves whether they want to hold the shares, and possibly take more risk, or not.

The placing by Gordon Dadds was also annoying. Apart from the dilution of 25%, it was a placing at a price of about 25% below the market price. Needless to say, this was taken up by institutional investors very promptly indeed while, as usual, private investors had no opportunity to do so. There did not seem to be any great urgency in this fund raising as it was simply to provide “financial flexibility” for their acquisition strategy. So why no full rights issue or open offer?

I simply do not wish to hold shares in companies that treat their investors this way. Those that do tend to be repeat offenders. So I sold the shares I held.

Another interesting placing was in Blue Prism (PRSM) a fast-growing supplier of office automation software, which I do not hold. The company also announced their full year results for the year to October. Revenue more than doubled to £55 million, but losses went up in a similar proportion to £26 million. The market cap is now an incredible £939 million (i.e. 17 times sales revenue).

Their placing was aimed at raising £100 million and was got away at 1100p (no significant discount to recent price but way down on a few months back). The purpose of the placing was given as this: “The Group is seeking to capitalise on the market opportunity available by accelerating its investments in distribution, its product and platform whilst maintaining its thought leadership in the RPA market.”

So it’s interesting to compare this approach with the position of Cloudcall (CALL) previously discussed who might expand faster if they raised more funds but are also loss making. Clearly Blue Prism intend to take the US approach and try to grab market leadership in a relatively new and potentially large market, i.e. it’s a land grab. This can work but the risk is that competitors who are more cost efficient can erode market share and often they all end up losing money until reality sinks in. Is what Blue Prism is doing that difficult to replicate by competitors? I do not know enough about their product to judge that but the share price and risk are too high for me.

It’s worth bearing in mind that in the software world you can sell almost anything with a good story if you spend enough. Whether such sales are really profitable can be very difficult to judge when money is also being spent at the same time to expand the business.

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.

RBS Share Buy-Back

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is proposing to buy-back up to 4.99% of its shares from the stake held by the Government (by UKFI on its behalf). At present the Government holds 62% of the company stemming from the bailout in the banking crisis ten years ago. They have been trying to get shot of it ever since as no Tory government thinks it should be investing in banks. This latest proposal makes it clear that UKFI cannot easily sell the shares in the market, nor place them with institutions, perhaps because there are still outstanding lawsuits faced by the company.

Should shareholders support this proposal? I don’t think so, and I will be voting against it with the few shares I hold which were acquired to support the ShareSoc campaign for the appointment of a Shareholder Committee. Incidentally this proposal rather suggests that it is now even more important to have such a Committee because this proposal may be of advantage to the Government but it is not at all clear whether it is of benefit to shareholders as a whole.

Fortunately UKFI won’t be able to vote their shares at the EGM to approve the proposed buy-back so other shareholders will decide the issue.

Other shareholders might wish to ask themselves, why should shares only be bought back from UKFI and not all shareholders, e.g. via a tender offer. Another negative is that this share buy-back is effectively a reduction in capital when banks like RBS still have a relatively thin equity capital base. In any case, I generally vote against buy-backs other than in investment trusts. They are usually misconceived. The Government commissioned research into share buy-backs a year ago on the grounds that they may be being used to inflate executive pay (reducing the number of shares in issue increases earnings per share which is a common element in executive pay bonus and LTIP schemes). The research has yet to produce a report.

Personally I would like to see share buy-backs made illegal except in very limited circumstances, as they used to be. They are rarely of benefit to other shareholders and can be used by foolish management to try to manage the share price.

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.

 

Cloudcall Investor Meeting, Sophos, RPI and Brexit

Yesterday I attended a “Capital Markets Day” for Cloudcall (CALL), a company in which I hold a few shares. But not many because it has been one of those technology companies with fast growing revenue but it has been slow in actually reaching profitability. The result has been multiple share placings, the last one in October 2017, to plug the negative cash flow hole. So cash flow was no doubt on investors minds at the meeting, as you will see.

The company sells unified communications technology to businesses using CRM systems. A couple of their major partners are Bullhorn (a recruitment/staffing software business) and Microsoft with their MS Dynamics product and there were speakers from both companies at the meeting. They helped to explain the attractiveness of the product to their customers, which I do not doubt.

CEO Simon Cleaver covered the latest product enhancements which will potentially enable them to integrate with 4 or more new CRM products in 2019. It will also include broadcast SMS messaging and mobile support which their customers need. Apparently there will be an increased focus on the US market, but the company is also looking at the APACS region and Brazil from later comments, where there are obvious opportunities. Pete Linas from Bullhorn made an interesting comment that the company has been missing out on business growth due to lack of finance – suggesting perhaps that a more aggressive strategy be adopted as per early stage US technology companies, i.e. ignore the losses and negative short-term cash flow and raise more finance.

CFO Paul Williams, covered the recent trading statement which was positive. Group revenue up 29% but cash burn was £1.5m in H2 2018, i.e. still consuming cash rather than generating it. Cash available was given as £2.75m. Paul also covered how the growth in users converts into revenue and future profits but they seem to have a relatively high churn rate for this kind of business, i.e. customers dropping out subsequently. It was not made clear why they lose some customers/users and what the customer contract durations actually are. However in response to one of my questions it was stated that forecast revenue growth for this year will be 40% (that’s higher than analyst’s forecasts so far as I can see).

Paul also said cash burn was reducing and Simon said that it was down to £240k per month, with sufficient cash to break even, if the sales numbers are met. He suggested that if more cash was needed (e.g. to fund US expansion) then they could raise their existing debt level from £1.8m to £3.0m and the board would prefer to raise the debt than more equity. The impression was given that conversations around that had already taken place and Paul Scott questioned whether the bankers would want to lend to a loss-making business – it seems they might. Comment: they might but at a hefty cost and with tight mandates. I simply don’t believe that companies like this should be financed via debt. Equity is what is needed for early stage, high-risk technology companies as I said to Simon later. But another placing may not be enthusiastically welcomed by investors at this time.

One interesting comment from the audience questioned whether the company was charging too little for the product. But it appears that they need more functionality to be able to charge more, and that would require more investment of course. But will the company ever become such an essential part of the customers’ business operations that they cannot do without, or even more to the point switch to a competitor? That was not really clear.

Concluding comment: The company is making progress and Simon communicates his enthusiasm well, but I suspect the business will continue to burn cash and financing that with debt makes no sense to me.

Sophos (SOPH) is another technology company that issued a trading statement today. The good news is that it has reached profitability and revenue has increased by 14% year-to-date. The share price promptly dropped by more than 25% in early trading! The reason was no doubt the lackluster growth in “billings” (i.e. invoiced sales) of 2%. Why is that different to the revenue figure? Probably because the revenue includes some accrued from last year on subscription billings. It otherwise looks like it is likely to meet the year-end targets forecasts of analysts. With the share price fall it’s starting to look relatively cheap for a high-growth software business so the key question investors have to ask is whether growth will return? It was no doubt exceptional last year because of IT security scares and new product releases, but is it simply nearing market saturation? An article in Shares magazine has questioned whether the cause of billings slowing is increasing competition from new market entrants so that’s certainly an issue to look at also. There is more explanation of the reasons for billing trends in the audio presentation available here: https://investors.sophos.com/en-us/events-and-presentations.aspx . I have a small holding in Sophos and bought more on the dip today.

RPI concerns. A House of Lords committee has apparently questioned the continuing use of the “discredited” Retail Price Index (RPI) when CPI is a more accurate reflection of inflation. RPI is still used for many purposes, such as rail fare costs, and for index-linked savings certificates and gilts. Personally having just signed up to extend my investment in savings certificates even with minimal real interest on them, I would be most concerned about any change and I would not have done so if the index used changed to CPI which typically gives a much lower figure.

Brexit. Everyone else is giving their views on Brexit so why not me? Here’s some.

Firstly, in case you have not noticed, MPs have apparently been advised that it might take over a year to organise another referendum. So those who are calling for another one are surely misguided. Putting off the EU exit that long, with the uncertainty involved surely makes no sense. And most people are fed up with debating Brexit even if the questions in a new referendum could be decided. Parliament and the executive Government alone need to come up with a solution.

Should we rule out a “no-deal” Brexit? No because it would not be a nightmare as remainers are suggesting. As I was explaining to my wife recently, grapes and bananas might become cheaper because EU tariffs would be removed on food from the rest of the world. What about UK farmers who would face problems in exporting to the EU? Well that just means that beef would also become cheaper in the UK. Secondly to rule out a no-deal Brexit would totally undermine our negotiating position to obtain a good Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. Only the threat of a no-deal Brexit with the risks to exports from the EU to the UK (where of course the trade flow is in their favour at present) will focus the minds of EU politicians. So Jeremy Corbyn’s insistence on ruling out “no-deal” before he will discuss the matter just looks like an attempt to throw a spanner in the works in the hope of getting a general election.

Can Mrs May get enough support for the Withdrawal Agreement as it stands? Undoubtedly not. She has to go back to the EU with proposals for substantial changes to meet the concerns of MPs and the public, e.g. over the Irish “backstop”. If she acts quickly and decisively, I think that could achieve success. If she cannot do so then surely someone else who can provide the required leadership needs to take over – including someone willing to support a no-deal Brexit if required. The current Withdrawal Agreement is not all bad, but contains some significant defects, probably because it appears to have been written by EU bureaucrats rather than as the result of mutual negotiation. It needs revising.

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.

 

Bogle Death, Patisserie and Diploma AGM

The death of John Bogle has been announced at the age of 89. He wrote several very informative books on investment and was the founder of Vanguard which has grown into one of the largest mutual fund managers by promoting index fund management. He also promoted the idea that the investors should own the fund manager. He suffered from heart attacks from a young age, the first at age 31, and actually had a heart transplant in 1990. So in some respects he was a medical success story as well as an investment one. His books are well worth reading even if you are not a fan of index tracking (I am not).

More bad news from Patisserie (CAKE) with two more non-exec directors resigning and an “update” saying there were thousands of false entries in the accounts. KPMG have been called in to review what to do next and the company’s bankers have been asked to extend the “standstill of its bank facilities”. I suggest investors mentally write off the value of their holdings in this company.

I attended the Annual General Meeting of Diploma (DPLM) yesterday (on the 16th Jan). This is a business that owns a ragbag of technology companies from multiple acquisitions but grew into a financial profile I like to see under the former CEO Bruce Thompson. He led it for 20 years. Consistent growth in profits, good return on capital (about 24%), and good cash flow with rising dividends. Unfortunately, the new CEO they appointed did not work out for some reason and left in August after only a few months. The Chairman, John Nicholas, took over temporarily and they have just appointed a new CEO named Johnny Thomson who was present at the AGM. He used to work for Compass Group which is a much bigger business so I asked him why he joined Diploma. Was he disappointed about not getting the CEOs job at Compass perhaps (the CEO there died in a plane crash)? His answer was that he had spent a long time at Compass and it was time for a change. Was he disappointed? Perhaps, is a summary of what he said.

The company issued a trading statement on the day, which said reported revenues up by 9% in the first quarter, and was otherwise positive. Thank god for such boring companies in these turbulent financial times. I asked a question in the meeting on the possible impact of Brexit and US/China trade wars. The answer was in essence not much so long as US tariffs don’t rise much further (they do import much from China to their US operations).

A poorly attended AGM but useful nevertheless from a company that keeps a low profile.

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

FCA Views of the Financial Landscape

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have published a document entitled “Sector Views” giving their annual analysis of the UK financial landscape and how the financial system is working – see https://tinyurl.com/yc492lkt . For retail investors there is a chapter on “Retail Investments” which is particularly worth reading.

But we also learn that the “FCA continues to plan for a range of scenarios regarding Brexit” which is good to hear. I somehow doubt it will be settled tomorrow in Parliament – I continue to forecast March 28th. We otherwise learn that cash is still king as a payment method with 40% of payment transactions, albeit falling; that 44% of consumers say nothing would encourage them to share their financial data (that has been encouraged by recent regulatory changes); that car insurance premiums are rising even though mine just fell which very much surprised me; that the ageing population presents a considerable challenge for pension savings and that mortgage borrowers are getting older (39% will have mortgages maturing when they are older than 65).

Cash ISA subscriptions continue to exceed Stock/Share ISAs by a wide margin, although the number of new cash ISA subscriptions fell last year. But only one third of the UK population hold any form of investment product. It looks like the rest are replying on pensions, state support or housing wealth to keep them in retirement.

They claim the investment platforms market is working well “in many respects” despite the fact that their use of nominee accounts for investors has disenfranchised retail investors. You can send them some comments on that via an email to sectorviews@fca.org.uk . But they do at least highlight the difficulty of switching platforms and they note that comparing pricing is also difficult.

Assets under management by the investment management sector grew to £9.1 trillion in 2017 with 20% managed for retail investors. The proportion of passively managed assets rose to 25% which continues the past trend.

Overall this review shows the size and complexity of the UK financial sector. At 36% of European Assets Under Management, it is much larger than any other European country. The next largest is France at 18% and Germany is only 9%. Let us hope it stays that way after Brexit.

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.

Improving Auditing – It’s Certainly Time

Readers don’t need to be reminded that many of the most damaging events for investors in public companies in recent years have arisen because of the failures of auditors to identify misleading accounts, if not downright fraud in some cases. The Kingman review of the FRC and the views of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) suggest that there is a widely recognised problem in the quality of work done by auditors and the regulation of the profession.

I have mentioned previously a report entitled “Reforming the Audit Industry” commissioned by the Labour Party which has advocated the break-up of the big four audit firms that dominate the audits of FTSE-350 firms. The report, co-authored by Prof. Prem Sikka et al (see https://tinyurl.com/yb68pfr5 ) is particularly good on the subject of how auditors have ducked any liability for their failings over the last 50 years – see Chapter 10.

If we want auditors to do a good job, then they need to be made accountable to both the companies who commission them and to investors who rely on the accounts that are published. That includes both audit firms and individual audit partners and managers. But we now have a situation where auditors have ducked both obligations by forming into Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), by writing contracts with their clients that exclude liability and by legal judgements such as that in the Caparo case. The aforementioned document spells out how this came about and is well worth reading. It shows how the FCA, FRC, and the Government have avoided their responsibility for ensuring that auditors are properly accountable with the result that one might expect – in essence shoddy work by auditors. One can only conclude that audit firms and accountants have had too much influence over the regulation of the audit profession. Or as the report puts it “the accounting cartel sets the rules”.

As the report says, “current liability laws do not exert sufficient pressure on auditors to be diligent or even exercise reasonable care and skill. In this environment, some audit partners cannot even be bothered to spend enough time on the job, or supervise audit staff”. It mentions that the PwC audit partner spent just two hours on the final audit of BHS and its parent company; while the Audit Senior Manager recorded only seven hours and was not involved in the final stages of the BHS audit. And at Quindell, auditors KPMG failed to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements as a whole were free from material misstatement, failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence and failed to exercise sufficient professional scepticism.

The reforms recommended in the report are:

  • Auditors must owe a ‘duty of care’ to individual stakeholders who have a reasonable justification for placing reliance upon auditors.
  • The incidence of liability must act as a pressure point for improvement of audit quality. Individuals and society must be empowered to seek redress from negligent auditors
  • There must be personal liability for audit failures upon partners responsible for audits.
  • Where a partner of the audit firm acts negligently, fraudulently or has colluded in the perpetration of fraud and material irregularities, civil and criminal liability must fall upon the partner of partners concerned and upon the firm jointly and severally.
  • Class lawsuits must be permitted to empower stakeholders as many stakeholders are not always in a position to seek redress from negligent auditors.
  • In the event of negligent and fraudulent practices, audit fees for the relevant years shall be returned to the audited entity.

These appear to be eminently sensible proposals to this writer.

The report covers the issue of lack of competition in the audit market as was covered by the CMA and their proposals are similar. Also covered are the failings of the FRC – lack of urgency, investigations abandoned and puny sanctions after audit failures. An example of the latter is that the fines imposed as a proportion of a firm’s global audit fees after major failings is a miniscule 0.016% on average. In other words, audit firms have no great incentive to avoid mistakes.

The concluding paragraph in the report says this: “History shows that much of the change in the world of accounting and auditing has been introduced in the teeth-of-opposition from accountancy trade associations and accounting firms. The same approach must be taken in order to make audit work for, and be accountable to, the many, and not the privileged few. Otherwise, there will be more avoidable scandals resulting in loss of pension rights, jobs, businesses, savings, investments and tax revenues, social instability and ultimately loss of faith in the ability of institutions of democracy to connect with the plight of the innocent bystanders”.

I hope everyone in the Government who has responsibility for company regulation reads this report. It is certainly time to make major changes in the audit profession.

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.

Share Tips, Debenhams, Jaguar (JLR) Layoffs and Brexit

Private Eye published its annual review of national press share tips this week. It makes for amusing reading and rather shows that financial journalists are no better than you and me at picking winners – indeed worse in most cases. The Guardian was noted as remaining “keen to empty its readers’ pockets”. It’s top ten share tips underperformed the FTSE100 by 28 percentage points, repeating the same dire performance as in 2017. One big loser was Footasylum (FOOT) which was down 90%. The Sunday Times was also mentioned as a provider of duff tips including Faron Pharmaceuticals, Clipper Logistics and William Hill. Also collecting brickbats were the Independent and Mail on Sunday. The moral is that relying on share tips from newspapers is not a sound investment strategy.

Several big stories in the national media today and yesterday are worthy of note. Debenhams (DEB) have lost their Chairman when he got a majority of votes against him after Mike Ashley of Sports Direct voted their 29% stake against him at the AGM, with support from another major shareholder. The new CEO, Sergio Bucher, also failed to get elected to the board but retains his executive job which is somewhat unusual. The company is clearly in need of refinancing as it is being overwhelmed by debt of £520 million. The share price is now down to 4p valuing the business at less than £50 million – not much for a business with revenue of £2.3 billion! But trading over Christmas and before was dire – see the trading statement issued on the date of the AGM. Mike Ashley has offered to refinance the business in return for more equity but has been rebuffed by the Debenham’s board. Comment: Can traditional department stores survive even if they dump their debt and reduce their property costs by a CVA? John Lewis still seem to be doing reasonably well but reported challenging trading and may cut their staff bonus this year. But most traditional department stores disappeared years ago. Debenhams do have a good on-line web site but will shoppers think of them and go there? Men’s shirts at 70% off, i.e. for £11.70, look good value but what margins are they making on those one wonders. Damn all I would guess. Some retailers like Dunelm do seem to be achieving a change to on-line customer service but Debenhams will be hobbled by its financial structure unless some vigorous action is taken. But it may simply be too late.

There has been much teeth gnashing over the thousands of job cuts announced by Jaguar Land Rover (JLR Group). Is that due to Brexit or other reasons? In fact it’s been hit by facing the unpopularity of diesel vehicles with a car product range that has very few petrol or hybrid/electric models unlike other up-market car makers. It has also been hit by a slow down in sales in China and by the fact that a new production plant has been built in Slovakia with state aid, i.e. jobs have moved there to a lower cost venue. That decision was taken before the referendum on Brexit in the UK. Jacob Rees-Mogg apparently drives one of their vehicles and said “Brexit has not happened. The reason it is making all these cuts is because it produces too many cars with diesel engines and its top of the range cars are not as reliable as you would want them to be”. As a Jaguar driver I agree with the first part but not the second

On the issue of the Brexit Referendum it is worth noting that the City of London Corporation Council have voted 60 to 31 against the suggestion of a second referendum – or “people’s vote” as some call it when the people already voted. This seems to be a very unpopular idea in general mainly because most “people” are rather fed up with the politicking over Brexit. And would just like to see the matter concluded.

Another big story in the media yesterday was that of the lady who had received two hand transplants (Corinne Hutton). She lost all her hands and feet from sepsis. I can understand her desire for the operation but I am not sure it is at all wise. Transplant recipients of any organs (and I am one) need to take drugs that are nephrotoxic to suppress the immune response, i.e. they damage the kidneys long-term. This means that they may need a kidney transplant after a few years and there is also a high risk of short-term graft failure. I know this not just from my knowledge of the field but from meeting a heart transplant patient in hospital who had also subsequently had to have a kidney transplant. Let us hope it works out well for Corinne though. But for the wealthy investors who read this blog, bear that in mind before you start shopping for new body parts.

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.

Market Bouncing Up or Down – Sophos, Greggs, Apple and Fundsmith

 

After a dire market performance before Xmas, we seem to be back to the good times in the last 3 days. Is it time to get back into the market for those who moved into cash as the market fell down and down and down in the autumn? Rather early to generalise I suggest although I have been picking up some shares recently.

One which I purchased a small holding in was Softcat (SCT). Yesterday it issued a trading update simply saying that trading was strong and they are materially ahead of where they expected to be at this stage in the year. The share price promptly jumped by 20%. I no doubt should have bought more. But there was a wider rise, no doubt driven by a rise in US markets and effectively ignoring the political turmoil in the UK.

Another company issuing a trading update yesterday was Greggs (GRG). They reported total sales up by 7.2% in the year and like-for-like sales up by 4.2% in the second half. The share price rose over 6% yesterday and it rose again this morning. CEO Roger Whiteside has done a remarkable job of turning around this company from being a rather old-fashioned bakery chain to a fast “food-on-the-go” business. New products have been introduced and new locations opened. The latest product initiative which got a lot of media coverage was vegan sausage rolls, now combined with “vegan-friendly” soup in a meal deal for just £2.25! A good example of how new management with new ideas can turn a boring and financially under-performing one into a growth story. But this comment of Lex in the FT is worth noting: “The positives, like the mycoprotein, are baked in. At almost 20 times forward earnings, the stock rating is well above the long-term average. Investors should wait for this dish to cool before taking a bite”. I remain a holder.

There have been lots of media comment on the profit warning from Apple with questions about whether we have hit “peak i-Phone”. Sales in China are slowing it seems and folks everywhere are not upgrading as frequently as before. Apple phone users may be loyal but they are now tending to upgrade after 3 years rather than 2.

Having just recently upgraded from a Model 6 to an 8, I can see why. The new phone is slightly faster but battery life has not significantly changed. Phone prices have gone up and I could not justify the even higher priced models. Software functionality is of course identical anyway.

Apple is the sort of company I do not invest directly in for two reasons. Firstly it’s very dependent on one product – iPhones are more than 50% of sales revenue. Secondly, all electronic hardware is vulnerable to being leapfrogged by competitors with newer, better products. With growing price competition in smartphones, particularly from low-cost Chinese producers, the world is surely going to get tougher for Apple.

Hargreaves Lansdown have reduced their recommended fund list down from 85 funds to 61 and it’s now called the Wealth 50, but Fundsmith Equity Fund is still not included even though it was one of the best performing funds last year. But they have kept faith in the Woodford Equity Income Fund which is most peculiar given its recent performance. It seems they think the big bets that Neil Woodford has been making on companies and sectors will come good in the long term, as they have in the past. We will see in due course no doubt.

But their reluctance to recommend Fundsmith seems to be more about the discounts on charges that some fund managers give them, which they do pass onto customers of course. It’s worth pointing out that the lowest cost way to invest in the Fundsmith Equity Fund can be to do it directly with Fundsmith rather than via a stockbroker or platform. That’s in the “T” class with an on-going charge of 1.05% which achieved an accumulated total return of 2.2% last year, beating most global indices and my own portfolio performance.

Indeed one commentator on my fund performance reported in a previous blog post suggested that an alternative to individual stock picking was just to pick the best performing fund. Certainly if all of my portfolio had been in Fundsmith last year rather than just a part then I would have done better. But that ignores the fact that my prior year performance was comparable and having a mix of smaller UK companies helped to diversify while Fundsmith is subject to currency risk as it is mainly invested in large US stocks. Backing one horse, or one fund manager, is almost as bad as buying only one share. Fund managers can lose their touch, or have poor short-term performance, as we have seen with Neil Woodford. Incidentally the Fundsmith Annual Meeting for investors is on the 26th February if you wish to learn more. Terry Smith is always an interesting speaker.

Stockopedia have just published an interesting analysis of how their “Guru” screens performed last year. Very mixed results with an overall figure worse than my portfolio. For example “Quality Composite” was down 19.7% and Income Composite was down 13.9%, with only “Bargain” screens doing well. It seems to me that screens can be helpful but relying on them alone to pick a few winning stocks which you hold on for months is not a recipe for assured success. It ignores the need to do some short-term trading as news flow appears, or to manage cash and market exposure based on market trends. As ever it’s worth reiterating that there is no one simplistic solution to achieve good long-term investment performance without too much risk taking.

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.