ShareSoc Woodford Legal Claim Seminar

There are several legal firms who are mounting cases to try and gain some redress for the investors but ShareSoc is backing Leigh Day who presented at the seminar. They are focussed on a claim against Link Fund Solutions, the Authorised Corporate Director (ACD) for the fund and which is part of a large financial group (Link).  Leigh Day’s investigations lead it to believe that Link allowed WEIF to hold excessive levels of illiquid or difficult-to-sell investments, and that this caused investors significant loss. In doing so, they consider Link breached the rules of the FCA Handbook and failed to properly carry out the management function of the Woodford Equity Income Fund. They have already issued a letter before action and received a rebuttal response from Link so have now filed a case in the High Court, i.e. the case is progressing – see https://woodfordpayback.co.uk/ for more details and how to join the claim.

A representative of Leigh Day presented the facts and the basis for their claim against Link, but as usual when lawyers present cases, this might not have been exactly clear for the average person. Lawyers seem to want to display their intelligence and knowledge in such presentations which might impress corporate clients but is inappropriate for the general public. Those who invested in the Woodford fund might not have been the most financially sophisticated individuals with many of them relying on recommendations from brokers such as Hargreaves Lansdown (HL).

It seems that Leigh Day cannot identify a good case against Neil Woodford himself, against his management company or against HL. This is unfortunate. Link and the FCA might have fallen down on the job of regulating WEIF and monitoring what Neil Woodford was doing but in essence it was his actions that eventually brought about the collapse. Not only did he invest in companies that were inappropriate for an “equity income” fund but many of them were high risk. Liquidity evaporated when fund performance was poor and negative publicity hit the fund at which point everyone wanted out.

The Leigh Day claim is certainly worth supporting in my view but they have only managed to sign up about 11,000 claimants so far. Why is that? No doubt the first problem is that they do not have access to a register of investors. Both Link and HL have rebutted such requests which is morally indefensible. The FCA should surely step in to ensure that happens if the required information cannot be obtained using the normal disclosure responsibility in legal cases.

Indeed the FCA could take much tougher action by enforcing compensation if they had a mind to do so, but as usual they are proving toothless.

One point I was not aware of before that came out in the meeting was that Grant Thornton were the auditors of the WEIF fund and should surely have queried the low liquidity. Another black mark against that firm.

Apart from the problem for Leigh Day getting through to investors there are a number of other difficulties in obtaining supporters for such legal actions. These are: 1) Investors are often elderly and suffer from sloth – repeated reminders are necessary to get them on board; 2) Investors are keen to forget their own mistakes in investing in the fund; 3) The time to likely obtain a judgement which is several years puts people off; 4) The legal case appears complex and the contracts between investors and the lawyers can be complicated – investors might also doubt that they are not facing risks of costs. The way the case is communicated to investors needs to be handled very carefully to ensure investors understand what is being done and why they do not face risks from the legal action.

Another issue is that ShareSoc and Leigh Day have pointed out that another approach might be to complain to the Financial Ombudsman. From my experience of that organisation, it would be a long and tedious process with little certainty of satisfaction. I would personally prefer to rely on an aggressive law firm to obtain some redress.

Leigh Day certainly seem to have acted competently so far in pursuing their legal action and have moved relatively quickly. I would also encourage you to write to your Member of Parliament to request that the Government ensures that the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) takes much stronger action over these events.  

Reminder

Please complete the following survey if you have not already done so to give me some feedback on this blog:  https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/sv/q6q1Z29

It should take less than a minute to complete as it only has three questions in it. It can be completed anonymously but there may be a summary of the results published in due course.

Roger Lawson

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Scrapping Share Certificates and Clive Sinclair Obituary

The Government is to push ahead with the scrapping of paper share certificates. An announcement yesterday by Lord Frost included this in a bonfire of regulations which also included plans to scrap driving licences (i.e. making them digital only). The dematerialisation of shares was long ago committed to by an EU directive with no new paper certificates to be issued by 2023 and all existing ones replaced by 2025.

There are many share certificates still held by investors – for example I still hold a few, mainly for VCT companies which I have never bothered to dematerialise. A paper share certificate at least ensures you are on the share register of a company and hence are a “member” with full shareholder rights. A replacement system which ensures you retain those rights rather than shares being held in a stockbroker’s nominee system is required but plans for implementation of such a system have been slow in appearing.

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/brexit-opportunities-regulatory-reforms for the announcement.

Inventor and businessman Sir Clive Sinclair has died at the age of 81. He developed early calculators, digital watches and the ZX81 and Spectrum personal computers. The latter were the first popular home computers in the UK sold at a price almost everyone could afford (less than £100). I fondly remember playing video games on a Spectrum but they were not much use for anything else. The keyboard was a single sheet of rubber and not fit for much at all.

Despite these short-lived commercial impacts, he never developed these businesses into long-term successes and even proceeded to destroy his reputation with the Sinclair C5 electric vehicle.

He provided a very good example of how in Britain we have good technology innovators but not good businessmen who can develop a company and conquer the world with superior sales and marketing.

Sir Clive seemed to always want to move on to new inventions rather than concentrating on making money from existing ones and doing the boring work involved in developing existing products and markets. Therefore in essence a flawed personality in many ways.

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Diversity – But at What Cost?

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have published a public consultation on “Diversity and inclusion on company boards and executive committees”. This summer I seen to be spending a lot of my time responding to FCA consultations and this one seems to yet another that will impose costs on publicly listed companies with no clear benefit while diverting management time. As I pointed out in my response to the Primary Markets Effectiveness Review, the imposition of more corporate governance regulations is one reason why public listings are falling as company management decide that it’s easier to remain private. That is the negative outcome of over-regulation.

What’s the latest consultation proposing? They propose to change the Listing Rules so as to “require companies to disclose publicly in their annual financial report whether they meet specific board diversity targets relating to gender and ethnicity on a ‘comply or explain’ basis”.

They also propose that companies publish standardised data on the composition of their board and the senior levels of executive management by gender and ethnic background; and to encourage a broader consideration of diversity at board level, they are also proposing to amend the corporate governance rules to expand reporting requirements to wider diversity characteristics. This could include ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and socio-economic background.

They may also “seek to widen the scope of the targets to levels below executive management”, i.e. This means not just the board and top management will be covered in future.

In the short term the rules will require:

  • At least 40% of the board should be women (including those self-identifying as women).
  • At least one of the senior board positions (Chair, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Senior Independent Director (SID) or Chief Financial Officer (CFO)) should be a woman (including those self-identifying as a woman).
  • At least one member of the board should be from a non-White ethnic minority background.

Although there is wide acceptance that more diversity on some boards may be preferable. By avoiding the all-white, male and elderly boards that were so common in the past, one can ensure more understanding of the modern world. And it is certainly the case that there may be some social justice in avoiding unfair discrimination against some characteristics. But is there any evidence that more diverse boards actually improve company performance?

The FCA report covers this issue in Section 3.27 onwards where they review the evidence. The evidence is not clear so they say: “Our own literature review of academic and other research published alongside our DP concludes that, overall, the empirical evidence for the impact of diverse workforces and boards on financial performance is inconclusive”. In essence the imposition of more regulation in this area may have no benefit while the disadvantages of loading management with extra responsibilities is ignored.

What concerns me most is that instead of picking the best candidates for board or senior management positions, they may be selected based on sex or ethnicity, i.e. there will be discrimination against others, which is of course illegal.

There is also a rather peculiar focus on factors that have no obvious relevance to fitness for a role. One of the oddities of public companies is that anyone with no qualifications or experience can be appointed. There is no requirement to have a business or accounting qualification. No requirement to know the basics of company law or to have had any training for the role of being a company director. Is this not most perverse?

For example I have attended several General Meetings of companies in the past where it was clear that the directors did not understand the basics of company law.

You also get peculiar results at present where the keenness to appoint more females results in some directors with little obvious qualifications for anything. They tend to end up chairing remuneration committees for example where they are dominated by executive management.

Would it not be preferable to regulate to ensure directors had basic competence in law and finance rather than happening to have the right skin colour? That is likely to be much more effective in improving company performance.

One of the most laughable aspects of the proposed new regime is that to meet the new rules on gender diversity all that needs to be done is for a current male member to “self-identify” as female. Will management be required to inquire into the details of sexual orientation when recruiting?

If we are going to start regulating management composition based on their characteristics, should we also not be ensuring a balance of ages, heights, physical fitness (no fatties allowed) or other relevant characteristics?

There are better alternatives to improving the diversity of boards other than using quotas. Education and structured experience programmes are more likely to produce a better outcome.

In summary I suggest this proposal is a complete nonsense and should be withdrawn. Readers should submit their own responses to the consultation to avoid responses being biased by the thoughts of those who wish to be politically correct.

You can see my detailed responses to the consultation questions here: https://www.roliscon.com/Diversity-Consultation-Response.pdf  

FCA Paper: Diversity and inclusion on company boards and executive committees. Consultation Paper CP21/24: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp21-24.pdf

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Comments on Primary Markets Effectiveness Review

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have launched a public consultation on potential changes to the regulations regarding the listing of companies on public exchanges (see link below). This is in response to concerns about the fall in the number of companies listing (the number listed is down by 40% since 2008). There is particular concern that the UK regime is tougher than other international markets and particularly deters certain types of companies from listing.

You only have to read the consultation document to understand how complex the rules on main market listing are and they are surely due for simplification. Over complex rules not just deter companies from listing but add to the costs of doing so and those costs fall on investors.

A survey by PWC in 2018 indicated that regulatory burdens and costs are the main reasons for not listing as opposed to raising finance by other means. A fall in the number of listed companies particularly affects private investors who want to invest directly in companies and wish to have a direct connection with where their money is invested.

Other factors are also involved such as the low cost of debt at present and the ability of private equity firms to act quickly and provide a less onerous corporate governance regime. But it would certainly be a retrograde step if public stock markets fell substantially in size.

Among the proposals to make listing more attractive in the UK are 1) allowing dual class structures where some shareholders can have disproportionate voting rights; and 2) relaxing free float levels required. But there is also a proposal to increase the minimum market capitalisation substantially from the present level, which surely would not help.

There are also proposals to alter the primary segment qualifications or remove segments altogether which I favour.

I support the relaxation of free float levels but am opposed to dual class structures. Dual class structures enable founders to retain control but that is not necessarily a good thing. In practice there are other ways that founders can retain substantial influence – for example by retaining significant shareholdings and board seats. I do not see that permitting dual class structures (DCSS) is necessary to make listing in the UK more attractive.

What will make listing more attractive is a simplification of the listing rules and a reduction in cost plus a reduction in the regulations such as onerous corporate governance regulations (such as the recently proposed climate disclosure regulations I commented negatively upon).

You can read my detailed responses to the FCA consultation here:

https://www.roliscon.com/Primary-Markets-Effectiveness-Review-Response.pdf

The FCA Consultation is here: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp21-21-primary-markets-effectiveness-review

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Changes to KIDs Proposed by the FCA

Yet another public consultation issued by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in mid-summer is one on KIDs (Key Information Documents). This is relevant to private investors and is designated CP21/23 – see link below.

KIDs are imposed and regulated under the PRIIPs regulation as devised by the EU for packaged investment products such as funds and trusts. KIDs give basic financial information, risk indicators and likely future performance based on past performance. Those who purchase investment trusts for example will be asked to confirm they have read the KID before purchasing a holding.

But in reality KIDs are grossly misleading for many investment trusts.  This is because their estimate of future returns are based on short-term historic data. This has caused many fund managers of investment trusts to suggest that they should be ignored and investors should look at the other data that the companies publish to get a better view of likely future returns. The AIC has also criticised them and this writer certainly ignores the KIDs for the investment trusts I hold.

The FCA says “Our proposals should address the existing conflict between PRIIPs requirements which on the one hand require PRIIPs manufacturers to ensure the information in the KID is accurate, clear, fair and not misleading while at the same time prescribing the production and presentation of information on performance and risk which, in some cases, can be seriously misleading”.

The production of KIDs does require substantial effort on the part of fund managers so they add to investors’ costs while not being of substantial benefit to investors in many cases. The intention might have been good but excessive complexity has undermined their usefulness. The FCA admits that the mandated methodologies for calculating performance can produce misleading illustrations across almost all asset classes.

The proposal is to remove performance scenarios from KIDs which seems a very good idea. Alternative performance information is suggested be provided., such as narrative about the factors that might affect performance.  But they have avoided providing past performance data which is what is likely to be most important to investors.  

The PRIIPs regulations required the publication of a Summary Risk Indicator (SRI). But the methodology to be used seemed to rate some trusts as low risk when they are not – for example Venture Capital Trusts. So it is proposed to introduce new rules requiring an updating of an SRI if it is obviously too low.

The proposals from the FCA seem generally sensible although the AIC is still not happy. They say in a press release that: “….the SRI methodology does not work properly and needs a complete rethink. We were raising concerns about KIDs even before the rules were finalised and we have been calling for changes since their introduction on 1 January 2018. Investment companies are still at a disadvantage in having to produce these toxic disclosures, whilst UCITS funds have repeatedly been let off the hook. It’s high time the Treasury conducted a comprehensive review of KIDs rather than relying on a piecemeal approach to their reform”.

Respondents to the consultation can give their own views of course. There is a simple on-line response form.

Reference: CP21/23 Consultation Paper:

https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp21-23-priips-proposed-scope-rules-amendments-regulatory-technical-standards

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Climate Related Bureaucracy to be Imposed by the FCA

It’s summer holiday time, so what better time to issue public consultations of which there are a spate of late? Is this because the authors wish to clear their desks before the holidays, or because they hope to get more or fewer responses at this time of year?

Anyway here are some comments on the first one I have looked at which is a consultation from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on “Enhancing climate-related disclosures by asset managers……(CP21/17).”.

The changes proposed to the FCA Handbook which will apply to all asset managers, life insurers and pension providers aims to tackle the “climate challenge” by providing more information on climate-related risks.

But there will be substantial costs imposed with no obvious benefits. For example, asset managers are expected to incur implementation costs of £202 million with on-going annual costs of £116 million. What are the benefits? This is what the consultation report says: “We do not consider that it is reasonably practicable to quantify the benefits of our proposals. We have therefore not sought to quantify the benefits to the market of addressing the identified harms”. In essence they are saying that there is no obvious cost/benefit justification.

But they do argue that “the estimated costs of compliance are small relative to total assets under management of in-scope asset managers and asset owners. Total one-off and ongoing costs represent 0.002% and 0.001% of total assets under management for asset managers and asset owners, respectively”. They may be small figures but bureaucracy tends to grow over time.

How will such disclosures make any difference to climate? Won’t it just become a virtue signalling exercise by asset managers?

I have posted the following response to the consultation. I suggest readers say something similar:

“I have not answered the individual questions posed because I consider the imposition of the need for asset managers and others to produce climate related disclosures will be a costly exercise with no benefits. There are significant costs being imposed with no clear benefit to the investors in the assets covered. It’s just adding more bureaucracy to an already high level of regulation which will deter new entrants to financial markets and reduce competition. It is adding costs to investors with no benefit.

The FCA seems to barely have the resources to police and enforce the existing regulations in the FCA Handbook so adding more superfluous regulations is pointless. It is not at all clear how new ESG regulations will improve the returns to investors”.

Reference: CP21/17 Consultation Paper: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp-21-17-climate-related-disclosures-asset-managers-life-insurers-regulated-pensions

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Public Consultation on Prospectus Regime Review

Last week, Chancellor Rishi Sunak gave a Mansion House speech that “set out the government’s vision for an open, green, and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens, creating jobs, supporting businesses, and powering growth across all of the UK”. See https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/mansion-house-2021 . The most important supporting document so far as stock market investors are concerned is the launch of specific proposals to reform the prospectus regime.

The Government wants to facilitate wider participation in the ownership of public companies when currently share issuance can be blocked to retail investors by a complex and rigid prospectus Directive as imposed by the EU. The commitment is to make the regulation of prospectuses more “agile” with the regulations better tailored to UK markets. The proposals follow on from Lord Hill’s Listings Review which recommended a fundamental review of the UK’s prospectus regime.

Investors in new stock market shares rely on the content of a prospectus when deciding whether to buy shares so it is important that the content is accurate and useful. But that is not always the case at present and the Government wishes to encourage the inclusion of more forward-looking statements.

Another problem is that the Prospectus Regulations are set in law and are extremely complex. That adds to the costs of prospectus preparation and also makes it difficult to revise them to meet changing needs (like the need to cover public offerings of securities in private companies such as “crowd funding” offers or offerings of overseas companies). One of the key changes proposed is to take prospectus regulation out of statute law and put it into the hands of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to enable them to make or revise regulations as necessary.

A particular problem at present is the need for the costly preparation of a prospectus when issuing new shares in smaller companies that can easily breach the £8 million threshold under the regulations, thus requiring a prospectus. This is why so many private shareholders are excluded from participation and the shares are issued only via a “placing” to a small group of institutional or “inside” investors.

Another oddity is that a prospectus is often required when shares are being issued even though the company’s shares are already listed and the share purchasers already own the shares and hence are presumably already familiar with the company. The Government’s proposals aim to simplify the regulations in essence to make it easier to issue shares to the aforementioned groups.

The FCA would also be given discretion to say whether a prospectus is required and a further objective is to simplify the content of prospectuses for secondary issues.

There are a lot of detailed questions in the public consultation which I will not attempt to deal with here as they mainly cover many of the technical issues involved in this area. But you can see my responses in this document: https://www.roliscon.com/Prospectus-Review-Roliscon-Response.pdf

Readers are encouraged to submit their own responses to the public consultation.

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Collecting Your Personal Health Data – Should You Object?

There seems to be quite a furore developing over the plans by the NHS to make your personal medical data available for research to a wide range of organisations, including commercial companies. It is no doubt true that the NHS has an enormous amount of medical data on the UK population which is unrivalled anywhere else in the world except possibly in China.

That data which might be as simple as weight and blood pressure, through to blood tests and even DNA samples, could be exceedingly useful by using “big data” analysis techniques to identify possible causes of disease. It would of course include past diagnoses and treatments including medication.

But there have been a number of protests raised about the risk of loss of confidentiality and the fact that it might not be completely depersonalised (i.e. the data released might enable people to be identified). Even some of my neighbours on the App Nextdoor have been advising people to opt-out.

This is a complex area and I remember discussing it with my GP some years ago when it was first contemplated. He had concerns but I do not while I think such data could be enormously useful in diagnosis and the development of new treatments. The Investors Chronicle ran an informative article on the subject last week and covered some of the companies active in this area.

For example it mentioned Alphabet (parent of Google) partnering with hospital chain HCA Healthcare to develop algorithms using patient records. As I have recently been treated in an HCA facility (they own London Bridge Hospital) that might include me. The article pointed out that even your Apple Smartwatch will be recording some medical data such as heart rate exercise data.

A number of companies are developing partnerships with hospital groups to collect and analyse the data they have on patients. For example, AIM listed Sensyne Health (SENS) is doing so. They recently announced an agreement with the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine which will extend their database by 7.3 million patients to over 18 million. They obviously plan to “monetise” that data by supplying it to other companies for research purposes. I do hold a few shares in Sensyne.

What are the concerns? Insurance companies would certainly like to know who might be bad risks by looking at patient data. They are unlikely to be able to do that, particularly as any data released will be depersonalised. But will it be impossible to identify people as some might enable linkages to be made? Perhaps not totally impossible but the risks seem low to me and personally I could not care less who knows my medical history. Others might disagree on that point but the benefits of having a good database of medical data to help with research, much of which is done by commercial companies, is surely invaluable.

There are opt-out provisions for those who have any concerns.

See https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-collections/general-practice-data-for-planning-and-research for more information.

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Restoring Trust in Audit and Corporate Governance

As it’s Friday afternoon with not much happening, and I have completed my latest complaint about the time it’s taking to complete a SIPP platform transfer, I decided to have a look at the public consultation on “Restoring Trust in Audit and Corporate Governance” from the BEIS Department.

This is a quite horrendous consultation on the Government’s proposals to improve audit standards and director behaviour as foretold in the Kingman and Brydon reviews, with proposals for a new regulatory body (ARGA). That’s after a growing lack of confidence in the accounts of companies by investors after numerous failures of companies, and not just smaller ones. I call the consultation horrendous because it consists of over 100 questions, many of them technical in nature, which is why BEIS have given us until the 8th of July to respond presumably.

I won’t even attempt to cover all the questions and my views on them in this brief note. But I would encourage all those who invest in the stock market, or have an interest in improving standards in corporate reporting, to wade through the questions and respond to the on-line consultation (see link below). Otherwise I fear that only those with a professional interest as accountants or as directors of public companies will be responding. The result might be a biased view of what is needed to improve the quality of financial information provided to investors.

The general thrust of the proposals do make sense and it would be unfortunate if the proposals were watered down due to opposition from professional accounting bodies and company directors.

But there is one aspect worth commenting upon. Some parts of the proposals appear to believe that standards can be improved by imposing more bureaucracy on auditors and company directors. This might add substantial costs for companies in terms of higher audit fees and more management time consumed, with probably little practical benefit.

We need simple rules, but tougher enforcement.

The audit profession appears to be already seeking to water down some of the proposals according to a recent article in the FT which reported that accountants were seeking leniency on “high risk audits”. That’s where they take on auditing a company for the first time which may prove difficult, particularly where corporate governance is poor. This looks like yet another attempt by auditors to duck liability for not spotting problems which has been one of the key problems for many years.

BEIS Consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restoring-trust-in-audit-and-corporate-governance

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Madoff Dies, Parsley Box, Active Trading, Babcock and Covid Vaccinations

Bernie Madoff, arch fraudster, has died in prison. He ran the largest ponzi scheme in history which defrauded investors of over $60 billion. His funds showed unbelievable good performance because he invented share trades to support his fund valuations. This attracted new investors whose cash he used to pay out departing investors and to support dividends. It is unbelievable that such outrageous frauds can still take place in the modern world despite all the onerous regulations.

I mentioned a recently listed company called Parsley Box (MEAL) in a prior blog post. I have now sampled their products – prepacked dinners and have come to the conclusion that I question whether this is likely to become a great company. The meals are rather bland and you can buy cheaper equivalents from supermarkets. They do have the advantage of a long shelf life and do not require refrigeration, but so do other products such as canned goods so I am not convinced there is a big market for them. The company is spending money on national TV advertising, on channels focused on the elderly like me. You can always generate sales if you spend enough on marketing, but that does not necessarily mean that you have a profitable business.  

How actively should one trade? This is a matter of personal preference I have come to believe. Some people can hold stocks for ever in the belief that they will come good in the end whereas others panic at the first sign of trouble. It does of course depend to some extent on the type of stocks in which you invest. Dumping small cap stocks that are on wide spreads can be a very bad idea. The volatility of small cap stocks can bounce you out of a holding quite easily if you have a tight stop-loss.

But there was an amusing story in the latest edition of the Techinvest newsletter. To quote: “In that respect, we are often reminded of a well-publicised study by a large American brokerage a few years ago that aimed to identify which retail accounts generated the highest investment returns. Top of the list were: the accounts of customers who it turned out had been deceased for some time; next best was those accounts that customers had forgotten about and had not traded on for many years; the poorest of investment returns belonged to accounts that had clocked up the highest transaction costs through frequent stock rotation”. Techinvest runs a portfolio and certainly its returns have been very good over the years as they rarely sell stocks. They appear to just wait until some idiot comes along willing to pay a premium price for their holdings.

Personally I often hold stocks for years but I am also impatient when investments seem to be going wrong. I cannot sit there doing nothing. As a man of action, I pander to my impatience by selling a proportion of my holding but not all, i.e. I sell on the way down in stages. That cuts my possible losses. The only exception to this rule I make is if the news is catastrophic or I have lost all trust in the management when I dump the lot.

Babcock (BAB) is a good example of the danger of holding on regardless. It has looked fundamentally cheap for some time but the shares have actually lost 75% of their value in the last 5 years in a steady downward trend. There was more bad news on the 13th April. An announcement from the company said “The contract profitability and balance sheet review (“CPBS”) has identified impairments and charges totaling approximately £1.7 billion”. They now plan some disposals which they suggest may enable them to avoid an equity issue.

On a personal note, I had my second Covid-19 vaccination yesterday (the Pfizer version) so I am feeling slightly tired this morning, as I did after the first. The organisation was chaotic though this time. Originally planned to be done at Guys Hospital but then redirected to St. Thomas hospital and they lost my wife’s record altogether. My tiredness may partly relate to the miles I walked yesterday around and between hospitals. The person who administered the injection worked for British Airways as cabin staff. He was redeployed as there are few flights to service at present. He said a lot of people are extremely nervous about taking the vaccine. He had spent 45 minutes talking to one person before they eventually refused it.

Personally I have no qualms at all about any of the vaccines. They are much safer than the risk of catching the virus. But there are a lot of idiots in this world are there not! The latest bad news however is that the CEO of Pfizer has suggested that we may need a booster every 12 months in future. As I have been having annual flu vaccinations for 25 years that is of no great concern.

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

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

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