Burford, Channel Island Registrations and Brexit

Firstly lets talk about Burford Capital (BUR). Tom Winnifrith, who has been complaining about the accounts and other issues at that company for a long time, sent a letter of complaint to the FCA and FRC (the Financial Reporting Council) asking them to investigate the allegations of Muddy Waters. The FRC have responded with this comment: “Burford Capital is incorporated under the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 and is accordingly not subject to the requirements of the Companies Act 2006”. They also said that the shares are traded on AIM which is not a regulated market. The FRC’s Corporate Reporting Review Team therefore does not have powers to make enquiries about the matters raised.

In summary, although the FCA and the FRC have some powers relating to the company’s directors and its auditor, Mr Winnifrith will have to complain to the Guernsey Financial Services Commission who are the regulatory authority.

As I said in my recently published book, company domicile does matter and is definitely worth checking before investing in a company. I specifically said: “In general for UK listed companies, any domicile outside the UK adds to the risk of investing in a company. Domicile in the Channel Islands or Isle of Man is also not ideal [see Chapter 7]”. So that’s yet another reason why I would not have invested in Burford, apart from my doubts about the prudence of their accounting.

Brexit

At the risk of offending half (approximately) of my readers, here are a few comments on the latest political situation and the prorogation of Parliament. Speaker John Bercow has said that “shutting down parliament would be an offence against the democratic process and the rights of parliamentarians….” while there was an editorial in the Financial Times today that said “it was an affront to democracy” and that Mr Johnson had “detonated a bomb under the constitutional apparatus of the United Kingdom”. But I tend to side with Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg who called it “completely constitutional and proper”. Suspension after a near record long parliamentary session to allow the Government to put forward its programme in a new Queen’s Speech is entirely appropriate and not unusual. There is also time before the suspension, and after, for Parliament to debate whatever they want before Brexit date on October 31st. Also Parliament is often closed down in September for the party conferences so this is not unusual.

It’s simply a case of sour grapes from remainers who realise they may not be able to stop Brexit or cause further trouble in resolving the impasse in Parliament. John Bercow is particularly to be criticised because he is supposed to be independent and should not be making such comments on a well-established procedure supported by precedent.

Parliament has been debating Brexit for many months and it is time to draw such debates to a conclusion because it gives the false hope to the EU that the UK will change its mind over leaving. The UK voted to leave and we should get on it with, preferably with some kind of Withdrawal Agreement, or otherwise none. Business is damaged by the on-going uncertainty which is why the pound has been falling. Boris Johnson is simply forcing the pace which is quite right.

If the opposition parties or remainers in the Conservative party do not like what is happening they can call for a vote of no confidence. It that was passed then a general election would no doubt be called, which the Conservatives might actually win, or the election might take place after the Brexit date which would put the remainers in a very difficult position. That is why they are so clamorous. They simply don’t like the position they find themselves in which has actually been caused by those in Parliament who have wanted to debate the matter endlessly without coming to a conclusion.

There are some possible legal challenges but should, or will, the judiciary interfere in what is happening in Parliament? I don’t think they should and I doubt they will. Are Scottish judges, where one challenge is being heard, really going to attempt to rule on a matter of UK wide importance? This seems unlikely in the extreme.

In summary, I think everyone should calm down and let the matter take its course. Those who are not happy with the turn of events can challenge it in Parliament via their elected representatives if they wish. But Brexit needs to be resolved on Oct 31st, one way or another. Not delayed yet again. There are so many other issues that Parliament needs to deal with that more debate on the matter is simply unacceptable.

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.

 

Brexit Investment Strategies

Investors may have noticed that the pound is in free fall and heading towards US$1.20. That’s near the low after the initial Brexit vote. Pundits, not that they can be relied on for forex forecasts, suggest it could go lower now that we seem to be heading for a “no-deal” Brexit.

With the pound falling, and potential damage to the UK economy from a hard Brexit, investors should surely have been avoiding companies reliant on UK sales, or UK consumers, or those such as engineers and manufacturers that rely on just-in-time deliveries from Europe. The key has been to invest in those UK listed companies that make most of their sales overseas in areas other than the EU.

One such company that announced interim results today is 4Imprint (FOUR), a supplier of promotional merchandise. Most of its sales are in the USA and its accounts are in dollars. Revenue in dollar terms was up 16% at the half year and pre-tax profit up 22%. The share price rose 6.5% yesterday and more this morning but the former suggests the good news leaked out surely. With the added boost from currency movements, this is the kind of company in which to invest but there are many other companies with similar profiles. For example, many software companies have a very international spread of business, or specialist manufacturers such as Judges Scientific (JDG). Those are the kind of companies that have done well and are likely to continue to do so in my view if the US economy remains buoyant and the dollar exchange rate remains favourable.

The other alternative to investing in specific UK listed companies with large export revenues and profits is of course to invest directly in companies listed in the USA or other markets. But that can be tricky so the other option is to invest in funds such as investment trusts that have a global spread of investments with a big emphasis on the USA. Companies such as Alliance Trust (ATST), Scottish Mortgage (SMT) or Polar Capital Technology Trust (PCT) come to mind. Alliance Trust has a one-year share price total return of 11% according to the AIC and the share price discount is still about 5%. I received the Annual Report of PCT yesterday and it makes for interesting reading. Net asset total return up 24.7% last year and it again beat its benchmark index. The investment team there has been led by Ben Rogoff for many years and what he has to say about the technology sector is always worth reading. Apparently the new technology to watch is “software containerisation” which is compared to the containerisation of cargo shipments in its revolutionary impact.

Another interesting comment is from the Chairman complimenting Ben on having the skill of buying shares and holding those which go on to outperform, but also knowing when to sell at the right time which the Chairman suggests is not common in fund managers.

Another hedge against a hard Brexit is to invest in companies that own warehouses because a lot more stockpiling is already taking place as a protection around the Brexit date by importers, but also more will be required to hold buffer stocks for manufacturers in the future. Companies such as Segro (SGRO), Tritax Big Box (BBOX), and Urban Logistics (SHED) have been doing well for that reason. They have also been helped by the trend to internet shopping which requires more warehousing space and less retail space. These trends are likely to continue in my view and the retail sector is likely to remain difficult for those retailers reliant on physical shops. You can see that from the results from Next (NXT) this morning. Shop sales down while internet sales up with the overall outcome better than expected as on-line sales grew rapidly. Anyone who expects the high street or shopping malls to revive is surely to going to be disappointed in my view.

There are bound to be some problems for particular sectors if we have a hard Brexit. The plight of Welsh sheep farmers was well covered by the BBC as Boris Johnson visited Wales yesterday. Most of their production currently goes to Europe but they may face 40% tariffs in future. The Prime Minister has promised assistance to help them but they have been heavily reliant on subsidies in the past in any case. There will need to be some difficult decisions made about the viability of farming on marginal land in future.

The falling pound has other implications of course. It will help exporters but importers will face higher prices with the result that inflation may rise. However, there are few products from Europe that cannot be substituted by home grown or produced equivalents, or by lower cost products from the rest of the world. With import tariffs lowered on many imports the net effect may be very low in the long term. But it will take time for producers and consumers to adjust. Tim Martin of JD Wetherspoon is well advanced in that process so you can see just how easy it will be to adapt.

In summary, investors should be looking at their current portfolios and how they might be impacted by Brexit now, if they have not already done so. There will clearly be winners and losers from the break with Europe and investors should not rely on any last-minute deal with the EU even if Boris is expecting one. Any solution may only be a temporary fix and the policies suggested above of international diversification are surely wise regardless of the political outcome.

Note: the author holds some of the stocks mentioned.

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.

Pay at HSBC and Santander, Net Worth, Duplicate Dividends and Persimmon

Apparently bankers still live in an unreal world so far as most of us are concerned, even after the financial crisis of ten years ago when their remuneration was attacked. The Financial Times covered two stories on the pay of bankers in today’s edition (16/7/2019). The first was on the opposition to pay at Standard Chartered and comments from the CEO, Bill Winters, on it after a vote of almost 40% against their pay policy in May. The concern is mainly about his pension arrangements which will mean he gets a pension allowance of £474,000 this year which is about 20% of his overall pay. But that includes bonuses when usually pensions are related to base salary only.

Mr Winters comments on his pay were quoted as “I think it’s quite appropriate for the board not to ask me to take a pay cut. And they didn’t – I don’t think it ever occurred to them to ask”. Is that not most amusing. Perhaps the FT coverage might remind them to consider the matter.

The other article was on the pay offered by Santander to Andrea Orcel as an incentive to join the company as CEO. It included a €52 million figure as a “joining bonus” including partly cash and partly in shares to offset the loss of deferred pay from him leaving UBS. In fact the offer was subsequently withdrawn and Mr Orcel is now suing but it just shows how bankers’ pay is still in fantasy land.

As it’s a quiet time of year I thought I would take a look at my and my wife’s “net worth” (we jointly manage our financial affairs). Over 20 years ago one of my US business associates talked to me about his net worth which was something new to me and ever since then I have reviewed it occasionally. It’s something everyone should do to tell whether you are getting richer or poorer, separately from your stock market speculations. How do you work it out? You simply list and add up all your assets and debts – like this:

Assets:

  • Cash in your bank accounts
  • Value of your investment accounts
  • Your cars – market value
  • Market value of your home
  • Value of Business interests
  • Personal property, such as jewelry, art, and furniture
  • Cash value of any insurance policies and pensions

Liabilities (outstanding balances):

  • House Mortgages
  • Car loan and other loans secured against assets (e.g. H/P agreements).
  • Credit card balances
  • Student loans
  • Any other debts

The Net Worth is simply the Assets less liabilities. If it is growing from year to year you must be doing something right. If you are getting poorer every year, then you need to do some hard thinking. It gives you a “reality check” on your overall financial position. However there are clearly periods in your life when you are likely to be building up wealth (such as the CEOs of banks mentioned above) but in later life you might be consuming it or giving it away. At least that’s the conventional assumption.

How did we do in the last year? Net worth was up 7% which rather surprised me as UK stock markets have been down over the last year in capital terms and our house (in London outer suburbs) was not revalued as the market is static. We must donate some more to charity.

Dividends do help of course, particularly when a company pays them out twice! This morning I received duplicate cheques from Pets at Home (PETS). I contacted the company and have spoken to their registrar. They will let me know whether to present the cheques or not. I suspect they may want to cancel all the dividend cheques they have issued. This is the first time this has happened to me, and it simply looks like the same cheques have been printed twice. I suggest other holders of shares in this company await advice, not that many people receive their dividends in cheque form these days.

Persimmon (PSN) shares were down slightly today which is not surprising after the documentary about the defects in their newly built houses on a Channel 4 Despatches programme last night. It highlighted the poor quality of the houses while Persimmon was raking in money from the Government “Help to Buy” scheme which encourages house buying and has probably contributed to rising house prices. Persimmon has been making a profit of £66,000 on each home sold on average, and it was suggested that they paid more attention to the profits of the company than to their customers. Such profits also enabled enormous bonuses to be paid to their management.

I used to hold Persimmon shares but no longer. I have been concerned for some time about the future of the Help-to-Buy scheme and the general unaffordability of houses which may get a lot worse if interest rates rise. House builders are certainly looking cheap on fundamentals at present but can the bonanza continue much longer is the question investors need to ask themselves. A few more programmes like that on Channel 4 and the Government may decide there are better ways to help those without houses.

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.

 

Woodford Changes, FT Political Comment, and Digital Services Tax

Apparently Neil Woodford is losing some of his senior staff. Perhaps he needs to cut costs as the funds being managed by his firm have shrunk as investors have walked and holdings in the funds have shrunk in value. But the Equity Income Fund is still closed to redemptions with no certain date when it will reopen, and there is no sign of the vigorous action I suggested. I put forward these alternatives on June 5th, but Neil Woodford is clearly not rushing into action:

1) That Neil Woodford appoint someone else to manage the fund – either an external fund management firm or a new fund management team and leader. Neil Woodford needs to withdraw from acting as fund manager and preferably remove his name from the fund; 2) Alternatively that a fund wind-up is announced in a planned manner; 3) Or a takeover/merger with another fund be organised – but that would not be easy as the current portfolio is not one that anyone else would want.

Once a reputation is lost, resignations should follow, with new leadership put in place. Which brings me onto the subject of the comments in the Financial Times over the last two days over the position of our ambassador to the USA and Brexit.

Yesterday I sent these comments to the FT’s political editor about his views on the position of Sir Kim Darroch which were headlined “Darroch pays price for would-be PM’s craven and shameful conduct”:

“Dear Mr Shrimsley,

I found your article in today’s FT on the US Ambassador and Boris Johnson most objectionable. Mr Johnson’s comments on Sir Kim Darroch’s position were restrained and not unreasonable. President Trump has indicated he will not work with our ambassador which surely makes his position untenable. There is no point in the UK defending or retaining him in post. He has subsequently resigned – and quite rightly.

Sir Kim clearly made some injudicious comments which unfortunately have leaked out even though foreign embassies have very secure communications facilities. Was this in a private communication by him? If so it was unwise in the extreme. But if there is to be any witch hunt it should be focussed on that issue alone.

This has nothing to do with Brexit and it should have nothing to do with your newspaper’s dislike of Trump or support for Brexit. So I suggest your article was misconceived as was the accompanying FT article printed on the same page about the relationship between the Civil Service and Government Ministers. The fact that Boris Johnson failed to defend or back Darroch while Jeremy Hunt rushed injudiciously to do so surely shows which politician is wiser.”

Today we have another article in the FT so extreme as to be comic by Martin Wolf which is headlined “Brexit means goodbye to Britain as we know it”. It suggests the UK will lose its reputation for being stable, pragmatic and respected. It describes Boris Johnson as a serial fantasist and concludes that the UK is no longer a “serious country”.

But the FT did cover well the publication of draft legislation on a new Digital Services Tax – see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-new-digital-services-tax . This will impose a tax on companies that operate social media platforms, search engines or online marketplaces to UK users. This is aimed to collect tax on revenues in such companies that are currently avoided by the fact they frequently operate from low tax jurisdictions. The focus is clearly on companies such as Alphabet (Google) and Facebook who generate large revenues from the UK but pay relatively little tax.

However there are some UK companies that are potentially liable such as Rightmove or Just Eat but they are likely not to have to pay because a group’s worldwide revenues from these digital activities needs to be more than £500m with more than £25m of these revenues derived from UK users.

The USA is crying foul over a similar French tax and surely quite rightly. The size exclusion means only the big US firms are going to be liable, and there is the issue of double taxation – they will be taxed on both revenue in the UK and potentially profits also. I suggest the USA has a justifiable complaint. It should surely be a tax on all such companies other than very small ones, with a deduction from Corporation Tax allowed to offset the double taxation issue.

There is one thing for certain. Such measures from the UK and France may threaten retaliation by the USA and might certainly jeopardize any new trade agreement between the UK and USA post-Brexit.

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

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

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

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.

Impressions from the Brexit Party Rally

Brexit rallyAs I received an invite to the Brexit Party Rally at the NEC in Birmingham, I went along yesterday to see what I could learn about their policies – apart from wanting Brexit of course. Not that there was a great deal to learn as clearly policies for a prospective general election are still being developed, but there were a few hints. However they do plan to have 600 candidates ready to fight such an election by the Autumn and 100 of them can be seen in the photo left of the event.

It was a lively meeting, and clearly professionally organised. With the party only being in existence for 49 days, it is surprising how much they have achieved already. They are clearly going to be a force to be reckoned with in UK politics whatever happens on Brexit.

The main speakers were Annunziata Rees-Mogg, Richard Tice, Tim Martin and Nigel Farage. Richard Tice is the party Chairman and spoke particularly well. He runs a property firm and was formerly CEO of CLS Holdings – a listed property company. He made it clear that the Brexit party has an “anti-London” focus where they think too much money is spent and have already committed to scrapping HS2. Another big commitment was to scrap interest on student loans and cancel all historic interest.

Tim Martin runs the Wetherspoon pubs and suggested that on a hard Brexit happening we will not need to drink French wine or German/Dutch beer. We can produce it ourselves or import from Australia. But his main focus was on the lack of democracy in the EU. He just wants to leave on WTO terms, i.e. without a deal.

Other speakers argued that the electoral system needs reform with some type of proportional representation introduced, and the House of Lords reformed or scrapped altogether (cheers for that from the audience). The events in the Peterborough by-election where the party failed to win the seat were explained as an abuse of the postal voting system (see below). Reform was also planned for the Civil Service – exactly why or how was not made clear, and the party wants to scrap the BBC License Fee but not scrap the BBC.

Unlike Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, there was no great commitment for tax hand-outs to bribe the electorate – maybe they will come later. But cancelling HS2, not paying the Brexit bill as proposed in the Withdrawal Agreement and halving the foreign aid budget will create many billions of pounds to spend on the regions outside London.

The Brexit Party is clearly a party of protest – members don’t like the EU, don’t like Westminster politicians, don’t like the BBC who collected boos from the audience, don’t like the London elite and the Civil Service, and more…. At a general election they might simply split off a lot of Conservative voters enabling the Labour Party to take power. That is an issue they have yet to tackle.

But that’s about all I learned about their policies which are clearly still under development. You can submit your own suggestions for what they should be by sending an email to policy@thebrexitparty.org .

You can see a video of the event and Nigel Farage’s speech on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXk0tChqOUk

Voting Reform

The alleged abuse of the postal voting system by the Labour Party in Peterborough is the subject of a legal challenge by the Brexit Party, who only lost by 683 votes. They are lodging a petition under the Representation of the People Act and several allegations of voter fraud are being investigated by the police.

Now I do personally have some experience of how the Labour party operates with postal votes. A few years ago we happened to visit my late mother-in-law when the Labour candidate was visiting to collect her vote. It was clear they had organised a postal vote for her, and had come to ensure she ticked the right box and they then promised to post her vote for her.

She might have been on their list of traditional Labour voters but given her age at the time she was hardly acting independently or with due consideration of the candidate and his policies. In other words, the Labour Party was leading the prospective voters by the nose with a well organised machine to collect votes from those who only had a vague commitment to the candidate and the policies they were supporting.

The Brexit Party certainly have a case to argue for reform in this area.

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.

FairFX AGM Report, Woodford Fund Issues and Zero Carbon

Firstly a brief report on the Annual General Meeting of FairFX (FFX) which I attended today in the City. Only I and one other shareholder asked any questions, and there may not have been many others there.

This is a payments company which had an initial focus on the provision of foreign exchange but they now do a lot more. They are planning to change the name in the near future and there was a resolution tabled to change the articles to enable them to do this without reverting to shareholders. I abstained on that because I prefer companies to put a change of name to investors. But talking to one of the directors after the meeting it sounds like they are taking a professional approach to the name change.

Revenue of the company was up 69% last year to £26 million with profits of £2.6 million. Adjusted EBITDA was up 687% if you wish to look on the bright side. There was a positive AGM announcement with phrases such as “a strong year to date” both in revenue and margins. Full year trading should be in line with market expectations.

The accounts of payment/credit card companies can be complex as I know from being a director of one of them in the past. So I asked a few questions on that area.

FairFX now exclude customer deposits from their accounts which is a definite improvement. But it does capitalise a lot of software development – £4.7 million last year, which I have no concerns about so long as it is in accordance with accounting standards. In response to a question I was told this level of expenditure might be a bit more in the current year. They are building a new unified front end on their 3 applications (platforms) – some of which were acquired.

I queried the collateral requirements of financial institutions they deal with (see page 6 of the Annual Report) and was told this is taken out of the cash figure on the balance sheet and is now in “Other receivables” – hence the large increase in that figure plus the impact of acquisitions on it and general increase in turnover.

Wirecard was mentioned during these questions. Apparently FairFX has historically used them as a “Card Issuer” but they now have the capability to issue cards themselves which will improve margins – customers will be migrated over. That’s reassuring because Wirecard has been getting some very negative publicity in the FT lately.

The other shareholder attending asked about the economic trends and their impact. Corporates are apparently sitting on their hands re FX and clearly Brexit risk might be impacting the demand for personal FX credit cards as holidays in Europe might be impacted by the uncertainty. However the CEO seemed confident about the future.

I might sign up for one of their “Everywhere” Pre-paid Credit Cards which looks cheaper than the company I am using at present.

This is one of those companies that has stopped issuing paper proxy forms – promoted by their Registrar Link Asset Services. I complained about that. I was also not happy that the resolutions were taken on a poll rather than a show of hands. But I understand the proxy counts were all higher than 99% so that was an academic issue.

Link acting as ACD for Woodford Funds

Link, in the guise of “Link Fund Solutions”, also got their name in the FT today over their activities as the Authorised Corporate Director (ACD) of the Woodford Equity Income Fund. An ACD is supposed to ensure that a fund sticks to the rules. They would have been involved in the decision to close the fund to redemptions.

It also seems very odd to me that they approved the listing of some fund holdings in Guernsey to get around the limitations of unlisted holdings. That was clearly an abuse as the reality was that these were not listing that provided any significant liquidity, with minimal dealing taking place. It’s the substance that counts, not how it might simply appear to meet the technical rules.

This looks to be yet another case of those who are supposed to be keeping financial operators in line not doing their job properly. But ask who is paying them.

FT article on Net Zero Emissions

I commented previously on Mrs May’s commitment to go for net zero carbon emissions by 2050. I called it suicidal.

There is a very good article on this topic in the FT today by Jonathan Ford (entitled “Net Zero Emissions Require a Wartime Level of Mobilisation”). The article explains how easy it is to get to the £1 Trillion cost mentioned by the Chancellor on required housing changes alone to remove all fossil fuel consumption. There may be some payback from the investment required but the payback period might be 37 years!

The whole energy system will need to be rebuilt and some of the required technologies (e.g. carbon capture) do not yet exist on a commercial basis. For more details go to the web site of the Committee on Climate Change and particularly the Technical Report present here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-technical-report/

If this plan is proceeded with there are enormous costs and enormous risks involved. But it will certainly have a major impact on not just our way of lives but on many UK companies many of which consume large amounts of power. That is definitely something investors must keep an eye on. Companies like FairFX may be one of the few that are not affected in a big way as they only manufacture electronic transactions. That’s assuming the rest of the economy and consumers are not too badly depressed by the changes as a result of course.

Nobel prize winning economist William Nordhaus has shown how a zero-carbon target is unwise. See this note for more information: https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html

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.