Safestore and Fundsmith AGMs

Today I attended the Annual General Meeting of Safestore Holdings Plc (SAFE) in Borehamwood. Their head office is next to one of their self-storage units. They now have 146 stores with a concentration in London/South-East England, and in major UK cities, plus some in Paris.

The Chairman, Alan Lewis, commenced the meeting with a very brief statement. He said 2018 was a good year with good strategic progress. He is confident value creation will continue. Note that Mr Lewis is stepping down as Chairman and they are looking for a replacement as he has now served for 9 years.

Safestore is a growing company in a growing sector. As people accumulate more junk, house sizes shrink and more people live in flats, they run out of space for their belongings. The demand is also driven by divorce and death. In addition to personal users, small businesses find such facilities useful to store goods, tools & equipment, or display material.

Revenue was up 11% last year, and earnings up 125% (or as this can be seen as a property company, EPRA earnings were up 15.5%). The dividend was increased by 13.8%. Self-storage companies can be perceived as property companies but they are best viewed as operating businesses in my view (the CEO seemed to agree with that). The market cap is way higher than the book value of the assets unlike in most property companies of late. Self-storage is one of the few growth areas in the property sector at present.

Page 8 of the Annual Report gives some information on the market for such facilities. Compared with say the USA, the UK storage space per head of population is only a small fraction of the USA. In other words, the UK market is relatively immature and to reach the same level as the USA would require another 12,000 stores!

I asked the Chairman why the company did not expand more rapidly if the potential is there? The response from the CEO was that there were problems with finding suitable new sites and with planning restrictions. They are also conservative on finance. A question on potential acquisitions arose as it is a fairly fragmented market in the UK but it seems few such opportunities are reasonably priced and meet the quality criteria they have. They did take over Alligator last year. Competitors don’t seem to be growing any more rapidly, and the CEO suggested they were gaining market share.

The main other question I raised was about their Remuneration scheme. At the 2017 AGM they only just managed to win the Remuneration Policy vote and at the 2018 AGM the Remuneration resolution was again just narrowly voted through. Remuneration Committee Chairperson Claire Balmforth explained that institutional investors were unhappy with the LTIP and the “quantum” of pay – that’s a polite way of saying it was too high. Indeed remuneration at this company is high in relation to the size of the business – the CEO received a total pay of £1.6 million last year (single figure remuneration). Even the Chairman received £135,000.

However it’s apparently all change after extensive conversations with institutional investors. The executive directors have agreed changes to the LTIP and a “more conventional” LTIP will be introduced in 2020. As a result they did better on the remuneration vote, and the votes on the re-election of Balmforth and Lewis, with the Remuneration resolution passing with 70% support.

It was not until later when I chatted to the directors that I discovered where I had come across Claire Balmforth before. She used to be HR Director, then Operations Director, at Carpetright when I held shares in that company.

Anyway I gave them my views on remuneration. Namely I don’t like LTIPs at all, particularly those that pay out more than 100% of base salary. I prefer directors are paid a higher basic salary with an annual bonus paid partly in cash, partly in shares.

Other than the pay issue, I was positively impressed as a result of attending the meeting.

One issue that arose was the poor turnout of shareholders at the meeting. There were more “suits” (i.e. advisors) than the 3 ordinary shareholders (two of those were me and son Alex). Now it happens that earlier in the day I was watching a recording of the annual meeting of Fundsmith Equity Fund which I had not been able to attend in person this year. Terry Smith was in his usual good form, and he said there were 1,300 investors at the meeting. That’s more than any other UK listed company or fund (most funds do not even have such meetings). An amusing and informative presentation helps enormously to attract investors of course. I wish all companies would bear that in mind.

You can watch the Fundsmith meeting recording here: https://www.fundsmith.co.uk/tv .

Anyone who wishes to learn how to make money in stock markets should watch it. Terry Smith has a remarkable record at Fundsmith. He said last year was not a vintage year as the fund was only up 2.2%. But that beat their benchmark and only 7.8% of UK funds generated positive returns last year. In the top 15 largest UK funds over 3 and 5 years, they are the clear winner.

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.

Alliance Trust Results and Directors’ Pay Cuts

Very long-established investment trust Alliance Trust (ATST) issued its annual results for 2018 on the 1st of March. Total return for the year was minus 5.4% with its equity portfolio slightly behind its benchmark index. It put this down to not holding a “narrow group of very large companies”. That performance is similar to my own personal investment portfolio and better than a number of active managers so I hope investors will be satisfied with it after the past revolution at the company.

It is of course disposing of Alliance Trust Savings which finally managed to show an operating profit after many years of losses, and it is also getting shot of some private equity investments and mineral rights in North America. It’s basically returning to its roots as a simple global investment trust which will please many investors.

Citywire have highlighted that many of the directors are taking a pay cut, with Chairman Lord Smith seeing his annual pay reduced from £120,000 to £80,000, Deputy Chairman Gregor Stewart losing £55,000 as he will no longer be a paid director of Alliance Trust Savings. Other directors’ fees are also reduced. Do not be too concerned about Lord Smith’s descent into poverty though – he still has a couple of other well paid jobs.

The pay changes are a rational move because although it was necessary to pay highly to new directors for the effort required to sort out the mess that was the company before Elliott launched their bid for changes, and for the reputational risk if they failed, it is hopefully now more stable and more similar to other investment trusts who do not pay enormous amounts to their non-executive directors. The pay changes will undoubtedly please the many Scottish holders of shares in the trust.

I do hold a few shares in Alliance Trust. I consider it can now be one of those core holdings that any investor who does not wish to track every gyration of the market can hold.

The current share price discount to NAV is 4.4% which is acceptable but the company says it is considering how they can stimulate additional demand for the shares. Investment trusts often have the problem of spending very little on marketing which can be a shame when they provide a low cost route for stock market exposure by investors and have a number of advantages over open-ended funds and ETFs.

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.

Taxation of Trusts, LTIPs and Technology Stocks

The Government has announced a review of the Taxation of Trusts. You can read the consultation document and respond thereafter here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-of-taxation-of-trusts-a-review

It’s not about investment trusts, but all kinds of traditional trusts whose origin goes back hundreds of years and enables “settlors” to move assets into a trust and out of their personal wealth. There are a number of different reasons why trusts are created as the above document explains. The Government does not dispute that they have genuine uses but wishes to ensure that they are not used for tax avoidance. They also wish to try and simplify the taxation of trusts if possible.

One particular concern they have is about foreign resident trusts controlled by UK residents where they cannot necessarily see what is going on, i.e. they lack “transparency”.

I do have an interest as a settlor in a simple UK based family trust. These are not straightforward things to set up but as for many people it was created to try and move some assets out of the scope of inheritance tax. However, apart from the fact that you can retain some control of where the money goes as a trustee, you may almost as well just give your money to the beneficiaries directly. But you can include minors and unborn offspring as beneficiaries so there are some advantages in the trust form.

Taxation is paid on trust income and capital gains but in a somewhat different form to personal tax. I won’t even attempt to explain the differences here as it would take too long. You can be worse or better off than having it in a personal name, but it won’t be as tax free as ISAs or SIPPs. The major income tax benefits of trusts have long ago disappeared. But certainly one problem with trusts at present is that calculating tax and making tax returns is no simple task so trusts tend to be used by those who can afford professional assistance or have a trustee who can do the necessary work.

But the expense of preparing trust accounts and tax returns are deductible which does not apply to personal tax returns. They suggest this is unfair in that trusts are being favoured which I certainly would not agree with! Of course if the taxation of trusts was simplified so that any amateur could do the work, I might take a different view. But certainly dealing with trust accounts at present is not simple.

Indeed the whole area of trust creation and management is too complex but no doubt there are lots of professionals who make a good living out of advising on them so their consultation responses might be somewhat biased.

I have not yet gone through the document in detail and I’ll probably even need to take some advice on it before responding, but this consultation will be very important to some people.

Postscript: My submission to the HMRC Consultation is present here: https://www.roliscon.com/Taxation-of-Trusts-Roliscon-Response%20.pdf

LTIPs

The case of Persimmon and the value that departing CEO Jeff Fairburn obtained from their LTIP scheme continues to get a lot of media coverage. Best guess seems to be about £75 million, but there are similar every large sums of money to other executives and there could be millions also to each of more than 100 staff under the same scheme.

This comment in the FT’s LEX column this morning is very much apposite: “There are two lessons. First, UK boards should ditch LTIPs in favour of vanilla stock awards. LTIPs are too complicated, sometimes delivering fat payouts when investor returns are thin. Second, chief executives should avoid saying they have no responsibility for their own pay. No one believes them”.

Why did shareholders vote for the original LTIP at Persimmon? Probably because nobody anticipated what the scheme might pay out after the housing market became buoyant and the Government introduced the “Help-to-Buy” scheme. There was of course no cap imposed on the payout which should have been done. But LTIP schemes are so complex many shareholders can’t be bothered to read the details (as I found out talking to one investor at the recent Abcam AGM).

I very much agree that LTIPs would be best replaced by conventional share options.

I have never liked LTIPs for a number of reasons: 1) typically too complex with confusing targets rather than simple numeric ones; 2) they are too long term – incentive schemes need to pay out quickly if you want behaviour to be incentivised by them. Short term cash bonuses are simple to administer and have some merits but there was a demand a few years back to make remuneration relate to long-term performance as short-term schemes can create perverse incentives. Share options do at least align employee interests with that of shareholders.

One change that is also required to avoid executives determining their own pay is to take remuneration setting out of the control of directors and into the hands of shareholders, e.g. via a Shareholder Committee for which ShareSoc has been campaigning.

Technology Stocks Due a Revival?

Sophos (SOPH) shares tumbled yesterday. The cyber security group closed down 28% after a disappointing report about future revenues in a half-year statement. This was one of those UK stocks that reached very expensive valuations until about July since which it’s been heading south. Indeed that’s a common story among small cap technology stocks with many having fallen back sharply in the last few months. That’s despite the fact that many are still growing revenues and profits well above inflation, i.e. they are still growth stocks. Sophos did have a particular problem of comparability with previous year’s figures which were very buoyant after numerous cyber attack scares. The valuation of Sophos now appears more sensible and it would seem other folks also feel it is time to dip their toes back in the water because the share price rose. Or was that a “dead-cat” bounce today? But there do appear to be some buying opportunities appearing in this area, although nobody would say it’s not a high-risk field for investors. At least the valuations are not so daft as they were only a few weeks ago.

Note: I do hold both Persimmon and Sophos shares.

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.

Persimmon Departure, Abcam AGM and Over-boarding

Persimmon (PSN) issued an announcement this morning saying that CEO Jeff Fairburn was stepping down at the request of the company because “the Board believes that the distraction around his remuneration from the 2012 LTIP scheme continues to have a negative impact on the reputation of the business and consequently on Jeff’s ability to continue in his role”. They are undoubtedly right there.

To remind readers, their misconceived and uncapped LTIP potentially would have meant bonus shares being awarded to Mr Fairburn worth well over £100 million, and similar large sums to other managers. Part of the potential award was later given up but even so it was the most disgraceful example of how pay has been ramped up by LTIPs in recent years. Another example at Abcam (ABC) is covered below.

Persimmon also issued a third quarter trading statement today which was generally positive. They clearly have a good forward committed sales pipeline and the extension of the help-to-buy scheme was positive news in the budget. But I am still somewhat nervous that the housebuilding market may suffer as interest rates rise. New houses are becoming unaffordable for many people despite the demand for accommodation and growing population.

Yesterday I attended the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Abcam. This is a company that sells antibodies and other life science products/services. It is operating in a high growth sector. I first invested in the shares of the company in 2006 and it has delivered a compound total return of over 32% per annum to me since based on Sharescope figures. I am therefore happy with the financial performance of the business as I said to the board at the AGM. That’s even allowing for recent declines in the share price as analyst forecasts were reduced and general market malaise affected high-flying technology stocks. But I am very unhappy about two aspects: 1) failure to answer simple questions at the AGM, which is the second time in a week where this problem has arisen (the previous being Patisserie); and 2) the remuneration scheme and revised LTIP.

What follows is a report on the meeting, summarised and paraphrased for brevity. The meeting was held at the company’s Cambridge offices at 2.00 pm, but not even a cup of tea was offered.

The recently appointed new Chairman, Peter Allen, introduced the board and there was then a very brief presentation from CEO Alan Hirzel. He said there were between £5 billion and £8 billion of opportunities for the company to grow which they were focused on. They had doubled revenue in the last 5 years, at 11.5% CAGR. There were lots of opportunities to continue to grow the business. They are now focused on 4 areas: 1) RUO Antibodies which are still growing; 2) Immunoassays where growth was 25% last year; 3) China for RUO tools (China could be as big a market as the USA in a few years and they now have 300 people there and are putting more investment in); and 4) CP&L (Abcam Inside). He said the company needs to invest in technology and IT to achieve their growth goals.

Questions were then invited. I commented on the absolutely massive expenditure on new IT systems. They have spent at least £33 million on the Oracle implementation with another £16 million to go and the project is clearly way behind schedule. This level of costs has even caused analysts to downgrade future profit forecasts. As the former IT manager of a large public company, this seemed disproportionate to me in relation to the size of the business. However much one recognises that IT is the key to the business, this looks like a typical project that is way out of control. Who is responsible for this, are they still with the company, who are the outside contractors and what is the current state of this project?

The Chairman first responded that any answers to shareholder questions could only relate to information already in the public domain. This is simply legally wrong and I will be writing to him on this subject and the other issues below.

However Alan Hirzel did respond and accepted the IT project was over budget and covered the history of the project. It was essential to replace some of the legacy systems which were unmaintainable. Many had been built in-house (even an email system apparently) and they had multiple different HR systems in different countries. HR was the first project completed (partner Hitachi as systems integrator) followed by a communication system (part CRM perhaps – it was not clear) but finance and supply chain (manufacturing) projects were yet to be done. He said the CIO had been replaced and a new system integration partner appointed. He assured me that the project was under control now.

I asked who the new IT contractor was, at which point the Chairman refused to answer as that was not in the public domain. I complained that this was a breach of company law as questions must be answered unless there are good reasons to do otherwise. For example, answers can be refused if it is confidential information, not in the company’s interests to do so or may affect the good order of the meeting. The relevant Regulation is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1632/pdfs/uksi_20091632_en.pdf (see Section 12).

I can see no reason why my question could not be answered as I said to the Chairman and to their lawyer, neither of whom seemed to be aware of the Regulations or the common law principle about answering questions at general meetings. The Chairman also suggested that they could not disclose some information because they would have to issue an RNS announcement to cover it. This of course only applies to “price sensitive” information and I don’t see how knowing who their IT contractor is would be price sensitive. Very annoying and feeble excuses were being given in essence from someone who is supposed to be a very experienced company Chairman. This is the second time in a week (the other was at Patisserie) where the law on answering questions was ignored which is exceedingly annoying.

After that debate, which I will be following up including with a complaint to the FCA as it is not acceptable for companies to ignore the law, we moved on to the Remuneration Resolutions.

I said the following: “Remuneration also seems to be out of control. Although the CEO seems to be generally doing a good job, his pay last year was £1.8 million. This is also out of proportion to the revenue and profitability of the business. Not only that but his basic pay has been increased by 22%, and the maximum award under the LTIP increased from 150% to 400% of base salary. This is obscene and totally unnecessary. Such highly geared schemes promote risky behaviour as we saw with bankers in the financial crash of 2008. I always vote against remuneration policies where the maximum award under LTIPs is more than 100% of base salary and I will be doing the same here. I encourage my fellow shareholders to do likewise”.

There was a response from Louise Patten, chair of the Remuneration Committee to the effect that they could be “traduced” for underpaying rather than overpaying (“criticised” I think she meant). A review had shown that the CEO was underpaid in comparison with market rates in the sector. The LTIP was only a temporary measure as a new policy would be adopted in 3 years’ time.

I also asked whether they had received representations on the subject of remuneration from proxy advisory services and fund managers. She indicated there had been but mainly focused on other issues than the LTIP (in fact they got only 67.1% FOR the Remuneration Report, and 86.7% for the Remuneration Policy which are very low numbers). I said I had no objection to an increase in base pay if justified, but the LTIP was an example of how pay is ratcheting up and it sets a very bad precedent that other companies will follow to have a 400% bonus maximum. I have of course argued with Ms Patten before on the remuneration schemes at this company to no effect, so I chose to vote against her and her two colleagues on the Remuneration Committee but she still collected most of the proxy votes. No other shareholders in the meeting, other than my son Alex who holds the shares also, voted against the remuneration resolutions or the directors which rather demonstrates that when shareholders are happy with a company’s financial performance, they will vote for anything.

There were few other questions from shareholders at the meeting, but after the formal part had finished I asked the Chairman why he only managed to achieve 79.6% of votes in support of his appointment. He said this was because of complaints of “over-boarding”, i.e. that he had too many roles. In fact he has 4 other Chairman roles and one other non-executive directorship which I certainly think is too many and is contrary to ShareSoc’s guidelines. He argued that it was no problem and he did not agree with the current attitude of some proxy advisory services. I disagreed. The duties of directors are more onerous than ever, particularly if the job is to be done properly. Even small difficulties at a company can create a lot of extra work. One of course only has to look at Patisserie Holdings and their recent difficulties where Luke Johnson had lots of other commitments and failed to pick up what appears to be a massive fraud executed by the finance director. Peter Allen seems to think that all he has to do is turn up for a few board meetings each year, let the executive directors get on with business and do not much else. But Abcam is becoming a large company where the Chairman’s role is much more significant than that.

I voted against the Chairman anyway because I think Chairman should be familiar with company law and how to handle questions at meetings. Good ones do of course know how to answer questions without giving out sensitive information or avoiding direct answers but it is certainly not good for the Chairmen to start an argument with a shareholder in a meeting on any subject. Some Chairmen need to take a lesson in how to handle awkward folks like me who are not easily ignored.

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.

Abcam, Pay and Voting

As a long-standing shareholder in Abcam (ABC), I have just received the Annual Report and I am not happy.

Abcam rather surprised the market when they issued their preliminary results which showed a massive investment in a new Oracle IT system was in difficulties. Clearly the project is over-budget and over-schedule. Costs are ramping up in other areas also and the result was a lowered broker forecast and an instant collapse in the share price – down over 30% at one point on the day. It’s been recovering since but it certainly looked like a case of mismanagement of the IT function. As a former IT manager of a large public company, I have seen this kind of thing before so I am none too impressed. Massive commitments to a big-bang approach to a new IT system which is sold on the basis that it will solve all your problems, but rarely does. So that will be one thing to raise at the AGM which I plan to attend.

But remuneration will be another issue to be questioned. The CEO, Alan Hirzell, seems to be doing a good job but his pay last year was £1.8 million. The company is now proposing a new Remuneration Policy which will increase the maximum potential LTIP award from 150% to 400%. In my view this is outrageously generous – I normally vote against any bonus scheme that awards more than 100% of salary as it promotes risky behaviour of the worst kind as we saw in the financial crisis with banker’s bonuses. The CFO will also get an LTIP with a maximum 200% bonus. Although there will be performance targets the justification given is that it will “promote the underlying philosophy of share ownership among our Executive Directors and reward the sustainable delivery of long-term profitable growth”. Hogwash is my comment.

So I will be voting against Louise Patten who is Chair of the Remuneration Committee as I did last year, and against her two colleagues, Mara Aspinall and Sue Harris who also have too many “roles” at other organisations in my view – contrary to ShareSoc guidelines. Also I will be voting against the new Chairman, Peter Allen, who should know better than to allow this kind of pay package to go forward. Plus I will be voting against the Remuneration Report and Remuneration Policy recommendations. In addition, there is a resolution to approve a change to the 2015 Share Option Plan for staff which permits nil-cost awards which seems unjustified so a vote against that also.

Note that they are also introducing a new all-employee share purchase plan which is not even being put to shareholders – not required under AIM rules they say.

Incidentally Louise Patten has an interesting career history. To quote from Wikipedia “In 2006 she started as a non-executive director of Marks & Spencer plc. As chairman of the Remuneration Committee, she was responsible for approving a bonus scheme which was criticised for making it easier for executive directors to change the associated growth targets”. She was also a non-executive director of Bradford & Bingley when the company failed and was nationalised in 2008. There may be more interesting information that I could not see because in Google a search for “Louise Patten” retrieves only a few entries with the statement “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe”.

I suggest other shareholders vote against the aforementioned resolutions likewise.

But it is easy to vote if you are on the register of the company and have been sent a proxy voting form. Equiniti, the company’s registrar, do provide an easy on-line voting system unlike other registrars, although for some peculiar reason they do not advertise the fact this year. All you need is the three numbers on the voting card and you can vote here: https://www.shareview.co.uk/views2/asp/VoteLogin.asp . No need to register or remember your log-in and password – just vote. As I said to a Link Asset Services representative at another AGM last week, why don’t they provide a simple system like that? They just wish to collect email addresses in my view by having people register and there is no security issue as they claim as it’s very unlikely that anyone would intercept the proxy voting card.

Registrars do need regulating by the FCA in my view, as I have said before, to put a stop to this kind of nonsense.

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.

Shareholder Voting and Financial Times Generosity

Anyone using an on-line investment platform will be aware that your shares are normally held in a nominee account (i.e. you do not own them, your broker does – you are only the “beneficial owner”). ShareSoc has long campaigned for reform of this system because it usually results in you not being able to vote your shares at General Meetings, and you are unlikely to be sent information such as Annual Reports. You are effectively disenfranchised and the lack of voting by private shareholders undermines good corporate governance. Platforms can enable you to vote by submitting proxy votes on your behalf, but many do not offer this facility.

Last week the Association of Investment Companies (AIC) published some information that helps you to get a vote. They showed which platforms provide such voting facilities. See https://www.theaic.co.uk/aic/news/press-releases/aic-releases-information-to-help-shareholders-vote-on-platforms for the details. Note though that some may permit it but often without providing an easy to use system of voting.

Ian Sayers of the AIC had this to say: “We need all platforms to offer a simple, online solution that means that shareholders get the information they need on resolutions affecting the company and can exercise their democratic rights at a click of a button. In the meantime, investors should consider whether and how they can vote their shares as part of their decision over which platform to use.”

One can only agree with his sentiment on this. The solution is to reform the laws and regulations in this area, and ideally have all shareholders on the share register of companies. But in the meantime, it’s worth reviewing the AIC list when choosing a platform to use.

Another item of news last week was a report from Reuters that a group of Financial Times journalists have complained about the pay of their CEO John Ridding. He earned £2.55 million pounds in 2017. The group led by an NUJ representative have written to their colleagues around the world saying the pay was absurdly high and that he should give some of it back to lowly paid staff.

Comment: Pay is escalating all over in the business world and this is just another example of outrageous pay inflation among senior management. The journalists’ initiative is to be applauded. As a daily reader of the Financial Times, I also have concerns that the CEO is not doing a great job either than might justify these gazillions. In the last couple of years, since the acquisition of the FT by Nikkei, the content of the paper has substantially changed.

It still publishes very good in-depth analyses of financial issues – for example, the review of accounting and audit standards headlined “Setting Flawed Standards” on Thursday which is well worth reading. But it has taken a very pro-EU and pro-Remainer political stance with numerous articles and published letters with a highly political slant. At the weekends we have to suffer from ex-sports journalist Simon Kuper’s views on that subject. He may know a lot about football but his views on UK politics and those who support Brexit seem very ill-informed.

Coverage of hard news on companies is also now very patchy, with more on the politics of foreign nations and on social issues. The FT needs to get back to reporting on financial matters and cut back on the political polemics.

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.

Hybrid AGMs and British Land

The British Land Plc (BLND) Annual General Meeting is coming up on the 17th July and I took the opportunity to review the agenda items as some are particularly interesting this year. One resolution refers to a change in the Articles which have been substantially revised. They include:

  • A new resolution to permit “hybrid” General Meetings where some members can participate electronically instead of attending in person. But “all electronic” meetings are still not permitted. This is surely a good initiative and would enable many more shareholders to “attend” such meetings. The disappointing aspect is that apparently the company has “no current intention” to use this capability.
  • A new provision is to allow the current directors to continue in office, with limited capabilities, if they are all voted off at an AGM. This is not very likely to happen, particularly when there are 13 directors on the board as in this company, although I have seen it threatened at smaller companies. Perhaps it is not an unreasonable provision. But why does any company need 13 directors? That surely makes board meetings either very long-winded or some directors are not likely to be saying much. It makes for dysfunctional board meetings. Looking at the backgrounds of some of the directors, where there is no obvious relevance to a property company, it would look like the board could be reduced in size without too much difficulty.
  • Another change is to up the limit on the total pay of non-executive directors from £600,000 to £900,000. Does that sound high? Perhaps not when the Chairman has a fee set at £385,000 per year and the non-executives get a base fee of £62,500 with other additions for sitting on various committees. Indeed the odd thing is that the total fees paid to non-executive directors were £986,000 last year. Surely that means the new limit it not enough and the limit was breached by a wide margin last year? Perhaps not because the limit excludes any additional fees for serving on committees or for acting as chairman which presumably can be set at whatever the board thinks are reasonable. In reality it’s a limit voted upon by shareholders that can be easily side-stepped. It’s surely worth asking for justification at the AGM! So I’ll be voting against the change to the Articles even though most of the revisions are sensible.

The registrar in this case is Equiniti. They sent me a paper proxy voting form but no paper Annual Report, which is somewhat annoying as reading a 186 page report on-line is not easy. I’ll have to request a paper one. But at least they provide an easy on-line voting system unlike some others I could mention – I am still on correspondence with Link Asset Services (Capita as was) on that subject.

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.