A Question Answered on Winners and Losers

When I tweeted a mention of my forthcoming presentation on Business Perspective Investing, Andrew responded that he would be interested in a list of my winners and losers over the years and lessons learnt. So here’s some of them.

Health warning: this is not a recommendation to buy, sell or otherwise speculate in these companies. Some of the companies have been sold, or been delisted due to takeovers or other reasons. The notes are only a very trivial analysis of the reasons I purchased them. I will not be advising of future changes to my shareholdings and I have not included relatively new purchases for the same reason.

I give the company name, the year first purchased and the compound annual return (including dividends) reported by Sharescope up to the current date, or when sold. Note that I rarely purchase large holdings at once, but tend to buy more over time if the performance is good. If the performance is poor they are sold so the losses are minimised.

Most of the winning companies show consistent growth in revenue, operate in growing markets, have a high return on capital, positive cash flow, some intellectual property (IP) and competent management. Many of the companies have exploited the internet to provider a quicker or lower cost service.

Some of the Winners:

4Imprint (2016: 31.0%). A simple business distributing promotional merchandise, sold over the internet.

AB Dynamics (2015: 74.6%). Automotive technology gaining from the need for improved testing requirements and automated vehicle needs.

Abcam (2006: 31.1%). Distributor and producer of antibodies and proteins used in medical research, sold over the internet.

Accesso (2012: 32.0%). Visitor attraction software and services. Consolidator in a diverse sector.

Bioventix (2014: 39.3%). Producer of antibodies for medical diagnostics.

Boohoo (2014: 108.8%). On-line clothes retailer. Benefiting from changing shopping habits.

Delcam (2003: 26.3%). Computer aided design software for manufacturing.

Diploma (2015: 28.6%). Specialised technical products in life sciences, seals and controls.

DotDigital (2011: 33.2%). Email and other business marketing services.

Fevertree (2017: 89.4%). Producer/distributor of drinks and mixers. Great marketing and strong branding with outsourced manufacturing.

GB Group (2003: 31.6%). Identity checking internet services, benefiting from the need for quicker ID checks.

Ideagen (2012: 36.0%). Software for GRC applications. Driven by both organic growth and acquisitions, higher regulatory demands and strong sales management.

Judges Scientific (2010: 25.6%). Producer of scientific instruments. Organic and acquisition growth and emphasis on buying small companies that are cheap that can deliver a high return on capital.

Moneysupermarket (2011: 19.6%). Internet price comparison services.

Rightmove (2012: 21.2%). On-line estate agency portal. Benefiting from network effects and being the market leader.

Safestore (2018: 29.5%). Self-storage property company. Growing need to store personal and business items.

Segro (2016: 26.1%). Property company specialising in warehousing. A growing sector from internet distribution need.

Tracsis (2013: 17.1%). Software for rail operators.

Victoria (2012: 74.8%). Floor covering manufacturer led by charismatic manager.

Some of the Losers:

Blancco Technology (2016: -34.1%). IT product erasure and diagnostics. Dubious and inaccurate accounts.

Patisserie Holdings (2017: -100%). Totally fraudulent accounts led by Executive Chairman who failed to watch the detail I suggest.

As you can see, the industries in which the successful companies operate are quite varied but there is a strong focus on “newer technology” companies providing internet services or software. Although technology has been a hot sector in recent years, that has been so for most of my investing life and I expect it to continue. Note how my prejudices against certain sectors are reflected in the above list. Although I have invested in a few mining and oil producers over the years, they were generally not successful investments. Likewise financial businesses with minor exceptions.

The per annum returns may not appear spectacular but it is the high returns over many years that makes them an outstanding investment (or “ten baggers” as some are – for example Abcam has compounded at over 30% per annum for thirteen years). It may be unable to continue to do so but the company still has ambitious growth plans.

The high performing companies listed tend to be smaller ones but my portfolio does hold some larger FTSE-100 and FTSE-250 companies. The more successful ones of those don’t achieve such high returns as the companies listed above but typically more in the 10% to 20% per annum range. I also hold a number of investment trusts and funds which have similar returns. But the lower returns on those are compensated for by the lower risks associated with them.

Some of the companies have changing performance over time. For example Accesso was a strong performer until recently. I tend to top-slice companies when they become over-rated by the market or there are significant changes in the business, and try to buy when they are still cheap.

Andrew also asked “if people didn’t put as much time into it as you, do you think they can make it work?” Effort in any game is rewarded. Likewise the more experience you have the better you get. That usually means some time commitment is required. But whether you spend a lot of time or little, the key is to use the time effectively and not try to research everything in absolute detail. There is more information available than you can hope to handle in the modern world. Experience tells you what is important of course and what can be ignored. My book “Business Perspective Investing” just suggests what is important to look at, and what is not.

Note that I will be giving some overall portfolio performance information at my presentation next Tuesday (the 12th November at the Mello London event).

Incidentally ShareSoc/UKSA have published their joint submission to the consultation on “Intermediated Investments” from the Law Commission. It is very similar in content to my own but even more detailed on the problems of nominee accounts and how they should be fixed. It’s well worth reading. See here:

https://www.sharesoc.org/sharesoc-news/sharesoc-uksa-response-law-commission-review-of-intermediated-securities-call-for-evidence/

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.

Law Commission Error on Segregated Accounts

In a previous blog post on the Law Commission’s consultation on Intermediated Securities I queried their claim that all investors in nominee accounts had the option to use a segregated account (i.e. a “designated account” where your name is on the share register, not just the nominee operator’s). They claim this is mandated by an EU regulation. This is extremely important because a simple “pooled” nominee account that most stockbrokers use does not give you clear ownership of the shares. If the broker goes bust and has not properly recorded who owns what (as is often the case), you may have difficulty recovering your shares. It also means that the company you own shares in cannot communicate with you and neither can anyone else.

HAVING YOUR NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS ON THE SHARE REGISTER IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!

I have now actually looked into the true position with three different stockbrokers I use for ISA and SIPP accounts. This is what they said (in summary, edited for brevity):

  1. We are planning to offer segregated accounts and we expect this to be available mid-next year.
  2. We are working on implementing this with the expectation it will be an option for account holders next year, but it will be considerably more expensive than our current fees.
  3. These requirements come into effect as soon as the CSD, in our case Euroclear, receives its authorisation from the regulator Bank of England as a CSD – this is expected to be Q1-2020. We will offer segregated accounts when obliged to do so. Charges will be materially higher than for a pooled nominee account given the additional processing and operational costs involved.

In summary therefore, they concede it is legally required but they are not rushing to implement it and they will be deterring people from using that option by high and unjustified charges. In essence this is disgraceful.

I will be making this plain to the Law Commission.

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.

 

Intermediated Securities – You Need to Respond

The Law Commission is undertaking a review of Intermediated Securities. What’s this about and why is it important? It is important because the use of nominee accounts has undermined your rights as a shareholder in public companies.

Nominee accounts have made it difficult to vote your shares at General Meetings, taken away other rights, and defeated shareholder democracy. The inability of companies or anyone else to communicate with all shareholders has also made it exceedingly difficult to tackle management when they are paying themselves too much or are simply not acting in shareholders interests. Individual shareholders have been particularly damaged by the use of nominee accounts which have taken over from paper share certificates for most holdings.

Another issue is that an EU Directive will soon be mandating “dematerialisation” of share certificates. All trading will need to be done in electronic form which implies nominee accounts only unless you happen to have a Personal Crest account (of which there are only 5,000 now) or unless a new “name on register” electronic account is devised.

ShareSoc has issued some information on the Law Commission public consultation on Intermediated Securities which you can read here: https://www.sharesoc.org/sharesoc-news/law-commission-review-of-intermediated-securities-consultation/

IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE RESPOND TO THIS CONSULTATION SO PLEASE DO SO!

You can read my personal submission to this consultation here: https://www.roliscon.com/Intermediated-Securities-Consultation.pdf

One interesting point made in the Commissions consultation document is that it says “intermediaries are obliged to offer investors the option of a segregated account” – see page 8. This is now EU law and I understand it is effective in the UK. That means that all ISA and SIPP holders should be offered the option of a segregated, i.e. designated,  account where your name and address are held on the share register and not just the nominee operator’s. Such accounts are much better than “pooled” nominee accounts which almost all brokers use at present and which are positively dangerous as your assets are not separately identified. That means that when your broker goes bust there is frequently a shortfall and recovery of your assets in full is not easy. I am looking into whether my ISA and SIPP operators actually are compliant with the EU legislation and do offer designated accounts. I will advise later on the answer.

However a designated nominee account is still not the ideal solution – all shareholders need to be on the share register of a company, which is what my consultation submission says.

PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SUPPORT SHARESOC AND RESPOND TO THE LAW COMMISSION’S CALL FOR EVIDENCE

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.

 

SVS Securities Update – Another Example of the Dangers of Nominee Accounts

ShareSoc have published an update on the situation at broker SVS Securities which went into administration recently and has affected 21,000 clients – even more than the number at Beaufort. As has happened before, it looks like some clients will lose money as a result of the “Special Administration” regime and there will be the usual long delays before clients are able to regain control of their shares and receive dividends on them. Read the update here: https://tinyurl.com/y6q82ekp

Yet again this displays the danger of the nominee account system which I have repeatedly campaigned against – see the ShareSoc web site here for more information: https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/shareholder-rights-campaign/

Please do support ShareSoc’s campaign on this issue, and support them by becoming a member. Nominee accounts are positively dangerous and do not protect your investments regardless of what the broker tells you.

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.

Removing Directors, Ventus VCTs, Rent Controls and HS2

Replacing the directors of companies by shareholders can be enormously difficult. Although I have been instrumental in the past in helping that process in several companies, it takes enormous effort and a lengthy timescale to achieve it. ShareSoc director Cliff Weight has published a very perceptive article on the problems of doing so at the Ventus VCTs.

Problems faced by shareholders who are unhappy with the directors of a company are a) communicating with all other shareholders now that many are in nominee accounts and the costly process of writing to shareholders on the register via post (and processing the register into usable format for mailing); b) the existing directors of a company using the resources of the company (i.e. shareholders funds) to campaign actively against any change including the use of expensive proxy advisors to contact shareholders via telephone; c) the role of IFAs who advise their clients or who manage their portfolios and who can influence the shareholder voting; and d) the inertia of institutional investors (or to quote someone from the FT today: about 60% of company investors are passive shareholders and ‘don’t care’).

In the case of the Ventus VCTs, some shareholders are unhappy with the management fees as no new investments are being made by the company and are unhappy with the actions of the directors. They have tabled requisitions for the Annual General Meetings at Ventus VCT and Ventus 2 VCT on the 8th August to remove all the directors and appoint new ones. Of particular concern is the current two-year termination notice on the management agreement which is now being proposed to extend further. It is never a good idea for investment trusts to have long termination periods in contracts with the manager.

You can read Cliff Weight’s blog article here: https://tinyurl.com/y2de9vaa . There is also an article covering this topic in this weeks Investor’s Chronicle under the title “Limits of Influence”. It’s well worth reading.

How to solve these problems? I suggest the following: a) a reform to put all shareholders (including beneficial owners) on the register of companies; b) put shareholders email addresses on the register so that communicating with them can be done at reasonable cost – it’s surely unreasonable in the modern age to only have postal addresses which adds to costs enormously; c) limit how much can be spent on proxy advisors to oppose shareholder requisitions; and d) exclude passive institutional investors who have no interest as owners from voting.

Rent Controls

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is intending to develop proposals for rent controls in London so as to “stabilise” or reduce property rents in London (or make them “more affordable” as he puts it). That’s despite the fact that he has no legal powers to do so and a Conservative government would likely block such proposals. But Jeremy Corbyn supports the idea. The Mayor clearly sees this as a vote winner for his re-election campaign next year as he claims 68% of Londoner’s support rent controls!

Some of my readers probably invest in buy-to-let properties so such proposals will worry them considerably. On the other hand, those who rent houses or flats in London are undoubtedly concerned about the cost of renting and the rapid rise in rents in London. Some are being forced out of London or have to move to smaller properties.

But rent controls never work and create all kinds of negative side-effects, or unintended consequences. When I moved to London in the 1960s, rent controls were in place and had been since 1945 in various forms (there is good coverage of the history of rent controls in London on Wikipedia). In the 1960s, unfurnished properties were almost impossible to find or were horribly expensive as landlords had withdrawn from the market. Rachmanism to force tenants out of rent controlled properties was also rife and what property there was available for rent on the market was often in very poor condition because landlords simply could not justify spending money on maintenance. We definitely do not want to return to the 1960s despite Jeremy Corbyn’s desire to put us there!

Rent controls are not the answer, as many studies of such schemes has shown. The Mayor needs to do more to tackle the housing problem in London by ensuring more home are built, encouraging movement of people out of London, and discouraging new immigration into the capital from elsewhere. But you can read the Mayor’s press release here if you wish to learn more about his plans: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/to-tackle-affordability-crisis

HS2 and Brexit

The latest report that HS2 may cost an extra £30bn, meaning it could cost as much as £85bn in total, surely makes it even less justifiable. Enabling a very few people to save a few minutes on the train journey time from London to Birmingham at that cost makes no sense, although there might be more justification for expanding capacity and speed on routes in the North of England. However, it would surely be much better to spend that kind of money on an improved road network where the benefits are much greater. The Alliance of British Drivers has just published an analysis of road expenditure versus taxation which includes a comparison of road versus rail expenditure. It’s well worth reading – see here: https://www.abd.org.uk/road-investment-and-road-user-taxation-the-truth/ .

Now the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) have recently suggested that a “no-deal” Brexit would blow a £30bn hole in the public finances. Even if you accept that is true, and many do not, there appears to be a simple solution therefore. Cancel HS2 just to be on the safe side.

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.

 

LoopUp Profit Warning and Brexit Party Policy

Conference calling AIM company LoopUp (LOOP) issued a trading statement this morning which contained a profit warning. At the time of writing the share price is down 47% on the day but it has been falling sharply in recent days which suggests the bad news had already leaked out.

This is an example of what happens when lofty growth expectations are revised downwards. Revenue is now expected to be down 7% on the previous market consensus and EBITDA down 20%. The company blames the shortfall on “subdued revenue across its long-term customer base” driven by macro-economic factors and diversion of sales staff into training new ones.

LoopUp is presenting at the ShareSoc seminar event on the 10th July so it will be interesting to hear what they have to say about this – see https://www.sharesoc.org/events/sharesoc-growth-company-seminar-in-london-10-july-2019/ . This news comes only a month after LoopUp held a Capital Markets Day when there was no hint of these problems. I did a report on that here: https://roliscon.blog/2019/06/07/broker-charges-proven-vct-performance-fee-and-loopup-seminar/

I do hold a few shares in LoopUp but thankfully not many.

Brexit Party Policy

I mentioned in a recent blog post that the Brexit Party is looking for policy suggestions to enable them to develop a platform for any prospective General Election. Here’s what I sent them with respect to financial matters:

  1. The personal taxation system is way too complicated and needs drastically simplifying. At the lower end the tax credit system is wide open to fraud while those on low incomes are taxed when they should not be. The personal tax allowance, both the basic rates, and higher rates, need to be raised to take more people out of tax altogether.
  2. The taxation of capital gains is also now too complicated, while tax is paid on capital gains that simply arise from inflation, which are not real gains at all. They should revert to being indexed as they were some years ago. For almost anyone, calculating your own tax that is payable is now way too difficult and hence requiring the paid services of accountants using specialist software.
  3. Inheritance tax is another over-complex system that wealthy people avoid by taking expert advice while the middle class end up paying it. It certainly needs grossly simplifying, or scrapping altogether as a relatively small amount of tax is actually collected from it.
  4. The taxation of businesses is inequitable with the growth of the internet. Small businesses, particularly retailers, pay a disproportionate level of tax in business rates while their internet competitors often avoid VAT via imports. VAT is now wide open to fraud and other types of abuse such as under-declarations, partly because of the EU VAT arrangements. VAT is in principle a simple tax and the alternative of a sales tax would create anomalies but VAT does need to be reformed and simplified.
  5. All the above tax simplifications would enable HMRC to be reduced in size and the time wasted in form filling by individuals and businesses reduced. Everyone would be a winner, and wasted resources and expenditure reduced.
  6. The taxation of company dividends on shares is now an example of the same profits being taxed twice – once in Corporation Tax on the company, and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. This has been enormously damaging to those who receive dividends and the lack of tax credits has also undermined defined benefit pension funds. The taxation of dividends should revert to how it once was.
  7. The regulation of companies and financial institutions needs very substantial reform with much tougher laws against fraud on investors. Not only are the current laws weak but the enforcement of them by the FCA/FRC is too slow and ineffective. Although some reforms have recently been proposed, they do not go far enough. Individual directors and senior managers in companies are not held to account for gross errors or downright fraud, or when they are, they get off too lightly. We need a much more effective system like they have in the USA, and better laws.
  8. Shareholder rights as regards voting and the receipt of information have been undermined by the use of nominee accounts. This has made it difficult for individual shareholders to vote and that is one reason why investors have not been able to control the excesses in director pay recently. The system of shareholding and voting needs reform, with changes to the Companies Act to bring it into the modern electronic world.
  9. The pay of directors and senior managers in companies and other organisations has got wildly out of hand in recent years, thus generating a lot of criticism by the lower paid. This has created social divisions and led partly to the rise of extreme left socialist tendencies. This problem needs tackling.
  10. Governance of companies needs to be reformed to ensure that directors do not set their own pay, as happens at present, but that shareholders and other stakeholders do so. Likewise shareholders and other stakeholders should appoint the directors.
  11. Insolvency law needs reform to outlaw “pre-pack” administrations which have been very damaging to many small businesses. They are an abuse of insolvency law.
  12. All the EU Directives on financial regulation should be scrapped (i.e. there should be no “harmonization” with EU regulations after Brexit). The MIFID regulations have added enormous costs to financial institutions, which have passed on their costs to their customers, with no very obvious benefit to anyone. Likewise the Shareholder Rights Directive might have had good objectives but the implementation has been poor because of the lack of knowledge on how financial markets operate in the UK. Other examples are the UCITS regulations which have not stopped Neil Woodford from effectively bypassing them, or the PRIIPS regulations which have resulted in misleading information being provided to investors.

Let me know if you have other suggestions, and of course the above policies might be good for adoption by other political parties in addition.

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 Rights Being Eroded

There is a good article in the Financial Times today (Saturday 22/6/2019) which is headlined “UK shareholder rights being eroded”. As the article says, almost no investors who buy shares legally own the shares they have bought, which rather surprises them. That’s because most of them buy via nominee accounts operated by stockbrokers and platforms. Not only that, but most nominee accounts are “pooled” accounts so even identifying who are the “beneficial owners” is not always easy.

Does it matter? Yes it does as investors apparently holding shares via Beaufort Securities soon found out, and there have been a number of similar cases. If brokers go bust or cease trading, your investments will be frozen and reclaiming them may not be easy. It also undermines your rights to vote, to attend AGMs and other rights that those on the share register of the company have as “Members”.

The Law Commission has announced a review of this system – see here for more details: https://tinyurl.com/yyhm3mf9 .

There are some good quotations from Cliff Weight of ShareSoc and Peter Parry of UKSA in the FT article. However there is this quote from Russ Mould of AJ Bell: “It is debatable whether this [nominee account system] makes it harder for shareholders to cast their votes any more than the old paper share certificate regime”. That is clearly wrong as those on the register can easily vote via submitting a paper proxy form or via the registrars’ on-line systems. Submitting votes if you are in a nominee account is rarely so simple and AJ Bell do not provide an easy to use method so it would require significant effort by investors to vote. The result is that most do not bother.

The other claim in the article is that the nominee account system has made trading easier and cheaper. That is not true either. The electronic Personal Crest system is a better alternative and as all trades go through Crest anyway (even those done via a nominee account), there is no cost difference in reality. The reason brokers and platforms have promoted nominee accounts is simply because there are other commercial advantages for them.

There is a lot more information on this subject which explains the real facts and includes a video from me on the subject on the ShareSoc web site here: https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/shareholder-rights-campaign/

A minimal if partial solution to this problem would be to have all beneficial owners on the share register. But in reality the whole system needs reforming so that investors are not forced into nominee accounts where they lose a lot of their legal rights, and shareholder democracy is fatally undermined.

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.