Tesla, Unilever, EasyJet IT Write-Offs and Cash Holdings

The big news today is that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have charged Tesla CEO Elon Musk with securities fraud. This charge relates to his comments on Twitter that he would likely be taking Tesla private. To quote from the SEC complaint: “Musk’s statements, disseminated via Twitter, falsely indicated that, should he so choose, it was virtually certain that he could take Tesla private at a purchase price that reflected a substantial premium over Tesla stock’s then current share price, that funding for this multi-billion dollar transaction had been secured, and that the only contingency was a shareholder vote. In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source”. Mr Musk vigorously rejected the charges, as did the company.

The full SEC complaint is here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-219.pdf

Comment: it is of course the oldest trick in the book if you are unhappy with the share price of your company to announce a potential bid from yourself or a third party. Making such an announcement via Twitter, if that was the motivation which has yet to be proven, would certainly be something new though. Making any announcements via Twitter is exceedingly risky and Tesla’s advisors must be tearing their hair out over this sequence of events. Who else if anyone reviewed the tweets before they were sent? Probably nobody I suspect. And anyone who uses Twitter will know it’s very easy to let typos, grammar errors and Spoonerisms creep in. Such important announcements should only be issued by the proper regulatory news channels. Elon Musk should have known better.

But if Elon Musk was forced to step down from Tesla, which might be the outcome, would it matter? I suspect not. The merit of Tesla as a company is in the technology in the cars which is still ahead of most potential electric car competitors. I have driven a Tesla Model S and it is a very good car indeed. But unfortunately my wife thinks I don’t need to buy expensive, flash cars to impress people any more so I’ll have to wait for the cheaper Model 3 to become available in the UK.

Unilever and Shareholder Voting

Unilever is planning to consolidate the two arms of the business in Holland, and drop the dual listing. UK shareholders would end up holding shares listed only in Holland, and as a result the dividends would be subject to Dutch withholding tax which is currently at the rate of 15%. Such taxes always cause problems although sometimes they can be refunded by submitting claims to do so. There is also the possibility that the withholding tax will be dropped. Another difficulty is that as Unilever is in the FTSE100, any funds running a FTSE-100 tracker would have to sell the shares. The Investors Chronicle ran a longish article on this subject and suggested it was a “no-brainer” for UK shareholders to vote against it.

But it seems that might be easier said than done. According to a report on Citywire, any shareholders in nominee accounts (i.e. in ISAs, SIPPs or other broker accounts – which means most UK shareholders now) will have to “rematerialize” their shares if they want to vote them, i.e. convert them to a paper share certificate. The company is not accepting votes submitted by nominee operators. Dematerialising shares is typically a costly and time-consuming process and is actually impossible to do if the shares are in an ISA or SIPP which have to be held in nominee form. This is truly outrageous news and any shareholders holding Unilever shares who wishes to oppose the move by the company should complain to the FCA, your Member of Parliament, the Company Chairman Marijn Dekkers, and anyone else you can think of.

[Postscript: the issue here seems to be the votes for the Court Hearing where the number of individual voters is taken into account. But for the shares held by a nominee operator, which may represent many thousands of underlying beneficial owners, only one vote would be counted even if it was submitted as there is only one holding on the register. ]

It has been reported that a number of institutions might oppose the unification of the company but it would certainly help to get retail shareholders voting.

Incidentally I attended a meeting today with Link Asset Services (one of the largest registrars) where the problem of retail shareholders not voting was discussed. I’ll write a separate blog post on that later.

EasyJet

If you recall, I mentioned previously the large expenditure on a “big-bang” IT project at Abcam which is clearly over-budget and over-time. That might have contributed to the 35% share price drop immediately after their recent preliminary results announcement. Now EasyJet have made a similar announcement today in their trading update. To quote: “…easyJet has now made the decision to change its approach to technology development through better utilisation and development of existing systems on a modular basis, rather than working towards a full replacement of our core commercial platform.  As a result of this change in approach, we are recognising a non-headline charge of around £65 million relating to IT investments and associated commitments we will no longer require. EasyJet will continue to invest in its digital and eCommerce layers that will enable it to continue to offer a leading innovative, revenue enhancing and customer friendly platform.”

That £65 million is no small sum and just shows you how IT is so critical to how businesses are managed in the modern world. Similar problems arose at TSB where they attempted to replace their old Lloyds systems with completely new software which was allegedly not adequately tested. But any IT professional will tell you that you cannot test and anticipate all the problems in a diverse customer environment ahead of going live with new technology. The NHS was another prime example of a “big-bang” approach to IT system development that ended up costing the Government, and us as taxpayers, at least £10 billion (that’s not a typo – it was ten billion and more). Evolution rather than revolution is the way to develop IT systems as EasyJet and Abcam seem to be learning, the hard way.

Cash Holdings

I suggested in a previous blog post that a newly available easy-access deposit account might be a suitable place to move cash from your stockbroking account to get a decent rate of interest rather than none. The problem of course is that most retail investors have most of their money in ISAs and SIPPs and taking cash out is problematic.

For ISAs, you may not realise that you can actually take cash out of a “flexible” ISA (which most ISAs are such as Stock & Share ISAs or Cash ISAs) and put it back in later. This was a recent change to the ISA regulations. However you can only do that within the same tax year without affecting your ISA allowance.

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.

The Impact on Investors of the Labour Party’s Plans

I commented briefly yesterday on the plans by John McDonnell of the Labour Party to give employees shares and possible future nationalisations – see: https://roliscon.blog/2018/09/24/labours-plans-for-confiscation-of-shares-and-rail-system-renationalisation/

More information is now available on the share scheme and the more one studies it the more one realises that whoever devised it does not understand much about business and the stock market. In other words they were typical politicians with no experience of the real world I would guess.

The scheme would apparently operate by companies with more than 250 employees being forced to hand over 10% of the shares in a company to an employee trust fund. That would be over a period of time – possibly ten years – and presumably that would be by the issuance of new shares rather than confiscating existing shares, but it still means 10% dilution for investors.

Shareholders normally get a vote on the issuance of new shares but presumably that could be legally subverted. Otherwise the scheme would cover about 11 million employees. However, foreign owned companies would not be covered so that excludes perhaps a third of the employees (the Labour Party apparently admits they would not be and it is difficult to see how legally any such law could be enforced on them).

One simple way for companies to avoid the scheme would be to move their country of registration elsewhere – no need to change where their shares are listed, just move domicile. We could see a host of companies re-registering in such places as Panama! An unintended consequence that I am sure the Labour Party would not like.

The shares accumulated in the trust fund would pay dividends to the individual shareholders out of the dividends paid to the fund by the company. But there would be a cap of £500 per employee. Any amount payable above that cap would revert to the Government. It is estimated this might generate £2 billion a year to the Government after 5 years – another large tax hike in addition to proposed increases in Corporation Tax the Shadow Chancellor is promising.

Employees could not buy or sell the shares held on their behalf, so presumably could not take them away when they leave or retire. So in practice those companies with high staff turnover would see the dividends accumulating for the benefit of the Government, particularly if the £500 cap remain fixed, i.e. unindexed.

But the company could avoid paying out this windfall to the Government simply by not paying dividends. Many companies don’t pay dividends anyway. Alternatively they could pay a dividend in shares (a “scrip” dividend), or offer to buy back shares occasionally via a tender offer or market share buy-backs– these would not be dividends and hence would be excluded.

Another problem with the scheme is that companies who had a few less than 250 employees could decide not to expand and hence become subject to this scheme, i.e. this would discourage companies from growing which is not what the Government wants. Alternatively they could create new separate companies owned by the same shareholders to expand their business and avoid it that way.

Apart from the 10% dilution that will hit not just direct investors but those investing via pension schemes, you can see that this scheme is not just daft because of its unintended consequences and likely avoidance, it’s an insidious way to raise taxes on companies and investors very substantially.

The only good aspect of the scheme is that it would help to give employees a stake (albeit indirect) and hence interest in the company they work for. It might also ensure some representation of their interests because the trust fund would be controlled by employees and could vote the shares. But there are much better ways to provide both those benefits.

In conclusion, the idea of an employee trust fund sounds attractive at first glance but it has not been properly thought through. A lot more consideration needs to be given to come up with a workable scheme that does not prejudice companies and their investors. Any foreign investor who saw such a scheme being imposed on his UK investment holdings would promptly run a mile – and don’t forget that most of the UK stock market is now owned by foreign investors. The impact on the Uk stock market, and the economic consequences of investors taking their businesses and investment money elsewhere beggars belief.

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.

Labour’s Plans For Confiscation of Shares and Rail System Renationalisation

Jeremy Corbyn made it clear in a speech last night that the rich will be under attack if Labour gets into power. John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor, will present his plans today to give 10% of shares in all larger companies to employees over a period of years. The Daily Telegraph described it as a Marxist plot to control businesses while Carolyn Fairburn of the CBI attacked it as a “new tax that adds to the impression that Labour sees business as a bottomless pit of funding”. The proposal seems to be based on setting up a trust for employees into which the shares would be deposited and from where dividends would be paid to employees.

Comment: It will certainly dilute existing shareholders so readers of this blog might find they and the pension funds that invest in shares are proportionally poorer. Although it sets a bad principle, if the numbers being proposed are enacted it might not have a major impact on companies or investors. Enabling employees to have a financial interest in the profits of a company is quite a sensible idea in many ways. But it might simply encourage companies to take their business elsewhere. If they are registered in another country, how will the UK Government enforce such legislation?

Last week Chris Grayling, Transport Secretary, announced a review of the privatised rail system. That follows the recent problems with new timetables where the regulator concluded that “nobody took charge”. John McDonnell said that he could renationalise the railways within five years if Labour wins the next election – it’s already a manifesto commitment. Perhaps he thinks he can solve the railway’s problems by doing so but this writer suggests the problem is technology rather than management, although cost also comes into the equation.

The basic problem is that the railways are built on inflexible and expensive old technology. There has never been a “timetable” problem on the roads because there are no fixed timetables – folks just do their own thing and travel when they want to do so.

Consider the rail signalling system – an enormously expensive infrastructure to ensure trains don’t run into each other and to give signals to train drivers. We do of course have a similar system at junctions on roads – they are called traffic lights. But they operate automatically and are relatively cheap. Most are not even linked in a network as train signals are required to be.

Trains run on tracks so they are extremely vulnerable to breakdowns of trains and damage to tracks – even snow, ice or leaves on the line cause disruption – who ever heard of road vehicles being delayed by leaves? A minor problem on a train track, often to signals, can quickly cause the whole line or network to come to a halt. Failing traffic signals on roads typically cause only slight delays and vehicles can drive around any broken-down cars or lorries.

The cost of changes to a rail line are simply enormous, and the cost of building them also. For example, the latest estimate for HS2 – the line from London to Birmingham is more than £80 billion. The original M1 was completed in 1999 at a cost of £26 million. Even allowing for inflation, and some widening and upgrading since then the total cost is probably less than £1 billion.

Changes to railway lines can be enormously expensive. For example, the cost of rebuilding London Bridge station to accommodate more trains was about £1 billion. These astronomic figures simply do not arise when motorways are revised or new service stations constructed.

Why invest more in a railway network when roads are cheaper to build and maintain, and a lot more flexible in use? At present the railways have to be massively subsidised by the Government out of taxation – about £4 billion per annum according to Wikipedia, or about 7.5p per mile of every train journey you take according to the BBC. Meanwhile road transport more than pays for itself and contributes billions to general taxation in addition from taxes on vehicle users.

So here’s a suggestion: scrap using this old technology for transport and invest more in roads. Let the railways shrink in size to where they are justifiable, or let them disappear as trams did for similar reasons – inflexible and expensive in comparison with buses.

No need to renationalise them at great expense. Spend the money instead on building a decent road network which is certainly not what we have at present.

Do you think that railways are more environmentally friendly? Electric trains may be but with electric road vehicles now becoming commonplace, that justification will no longer apply in a few years’ time, if not already.

Just like some people love old transport modes – just think canals and steam trains – the attachment to old technology in transport is simply irrational as well as being very expensive. Road vehicles take you from door-to-door at lower cost, with no “changing trains” or waiting for the next one to arrive. No disruption caused by striking guards or drivers as London commuters have seen so frequently.

In summary building and managing a road network is cheaper and simpler. It just needs a change of mindset to see the advantages of road over rail. But John McDonnell wants to take us back to 1948 when the railways were last nationalised. Better to invest in the roads than the railways.

It has been suggested that John McDonnell is a Marxist but at times he has denied it. Those not aware of the impact of Marxism on political thought would do well to read a book I recently perused which covered the impact of the Bolsheviks in post-revolutionary Russia circa 1919. In Tashkent they nationalised all pianos as owning a piano was considered “bourgeois”. They were confiscated and given to schools. One man who had his piano nationalised lost his temper and broke up the piano with an axe. He was taken to goal and then shot (from the book Mission to Tashkent by Col. F.M. Bailey).

Sometimes history can be very revealing. The same mentality that wishes to spend money on public transport such as railways as opposed to private transport systems, or renationalising the utility companies such as National Grid which is also on the agenda, shows the same defects.

The above might be controversial, but I have not even mentioned Brexit yet. Will the Labour Party support another referendum as some hope and Corbyn is still hedging his bets over? I hope not because I think the electorate is mightily fed up with the subject. In politics, as in business, you should take decisions and then move on. Going back and refighting old battles is not the way to succeed. All we should be debating is the form of Britain’s relationship with the EU after Brexit.

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

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

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

Worldwide Healthcare Trust AGM – But No Proxy Voting Form

Today I attended the Annual General Meeting of Worldwide Healthcare Trust (WWH) in London. This is an investment trust focused on a portfolio of worldwide pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. It has a very good long-term track record, consistently beating its benchmark and is the top performer of all UK investment trusts measured since formation.

The fund manager is OrbiMed where Sam Isalay was the managing partner until recently when he departed under a cloud of sexual harassment claims. He also resigned from the board of the Trust at the same time and was replaced by Sven Borho who did the manager’s presentation this year. Sam Isalay was present at the meeting and asked a question. He also got a vote of thanks for his past work, prompted by the Chairman.

There were about 100 shareholders present including quite a number of institutional investors apparently by the cut of their suits and age, which is unusual.

I will summarise Sven’s talk in brief although it was particularly interesting. He said the recipe for success was still very much in place. The team is still in place even after the change of leadership. The trust was up 2.8% last year against a benchmark decline of 2.5%. The share price discount narrowed and it is now trading at a premium (now 0.8% according to the AIC).

Year to date (since March year end) the NAV is up 15.8%. The consistent out-performance seems to be down to stock-picking with a focus on small/mid cap companies.

Sven also said that it was strong year of scientific progress and mentioned in particular gene therapy, gene silencing and CAR-T work. He also discussed the progress on a cure for alzheimer’s disease at some length where real progress is being made. There have been many past failures in cures for that disease with billions of dollars being spent but there are 5.7 million patients needing treatment in the USA which is more than all cancer patients combined. There are several companies in clinical trials with phase 3 results due by 2020.

I might need a cure because this morning I had a “senior moment” and shut the garage door while my wife was backing her car out. Fortunately no damage done or I would not have heard the last of it.

Apparently the drug approval rate has increased substantially due to a change in management at the FDA who has changed the regulations to make it easier and cheaper to get approval for new drugs.

After about an hour of Sven’s presentation, which was rather long, we moved onto the formal business of the meeting.

One shareholder asked how much had the company borrowed? He also said he asked the same question last year and was still waiting for an answer. The simple answer he got was they are 117% invested, but as they use derivatives the full answer was more complex and I did not understand what was said – there is more clarity in the Annual Report. The shareholder was clearly not satisfied because he voted against the Chairman when it came to the vote.

I questioned what the impact would be of the announcement in the Annual Report that they would no longer be issuing proxy voting forms with their invites to the AGM. The Chairman referred me to the Company Secretary who could not give an answer. So I made it clear I objected to this change as it would be likely to discourage voting. As I said, I had already raised this issue with their Registrar’s Link Asset Services in an exchange of correspondence (see my previous blog post on this topic here: https://roliscon.blog/2018/07/23/voting-at-general-meetings-link-asset-services-and-centralnic/ ). Why did the Chairman not ask the audience at this meeting what they preferred? He declined to do so.

He also suggested there was not time to spend on this issue at which point I said he would have plenty of time if he had not set the start time of the AGM at 12.00 noon. This is a practice I have seen at other trust AGMs where after presentations there is little time left for questions before lunch is served. I think this is very bad practice.

Note if you don’t receive a paper proxy voting form in future, go here for one you can use at any General Meeting: https://www.roliscon.com/proxy-voting.html . If you think this is a retrograde step which will reduce voting by private shareholders from the already low level, please do complain about it to the Chairmen of companies and to Link Asset Services.

I did not have time to raise the issue of the Chairman having served on the board since 2007. This is contrary to the UK Corporate Governance Code, so that’s another reason why I will be voting against him next year. He got 6.6% against him on the proxy vote counts at this meeting.

Other than the issues mentioned above, this was a very informative meeting and well worth attending. As readers may be aware, I have suddenly taken an interest in the gene therapy area and this trust is one way into it. The manager, OrbiMed, also manage the Biotech Growth Trust which is more focused and somewhat smaller. It also trades at a significant discount at present but has underperformed its benchmark of late.

Postscript: there is an interesting article on the departure of Sam Isalay here on Citywire: http://citywire.co.uk/investment-trust-insider/news/fund-manager-accused-of-harassment-hits-out-over-exit/a1157479?

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, Abcam, Victoria and the Beaufort Case

Another bad day for my portfolio yesterday after a week of bad days last week when I was on holiday. Some of the problems relate to the rise in the pound based on suggestions by Michel Barnier that there might actually be a settlement of Brexit along the lines proposed by Theresa May. This has hit all the companies with lots of exports and investment trusts with big holdings in dollar investments that comprise much of my portfolio. But a really big hit yesterday was Abcam (ABC).

Abcam issued their preliminary results yesterday morning. When I first read it, it seemed to be much as expected. Adjusted earnings per share up 27.1%, dividend up 17.1% and broker forecasts generally met. The share price promptly headed downhill and dropped as much as 32%, which is the kind of drop you see on a major profit warning, before recovering to a drop of 15.2% at the end of the day.

I re-read the announcement more than once without being able to identify any major issues or hidden messages that could explain this drop. The announcement did mention more investment in the Oracle ERP system, in a new office and other costs but those projects were already known about. Indeed I covered them in the last blog post I wrote about the previous Abcam AGM where I was somewhat critical of the rising costs (see https://roliscon.blog/2017/11/15/abcam-agm-cambridge-cognition-ultra-electronics-wey-education-and-idox/ ). The Oracle project is clearly over-budget and running behind schedule. A lot of these costs are being capitalised so they disappear from the “adjusted” figures.

The killer to the share price appears to have been comments from Peel Hunt that the extra costs will reduce adjusted earnings by 9% based on reduced margins. The preliminary results announcement did suggest that the adjusted EBITDA margin would likely be 36% as against the 37.8% that was actually reported for last year. Revenue growth of 11% is expected for the current year so even at the reduced margin that still means profits will grow by about 5%. That implies only a slight reduction in adjusted e.p.s. on my calculations which implies a prospective p/e of about 34. That may be acceptable for such a high-quality company with an enviable track record (which is why it is one of my larger holdings) but perhaps investors suddenly realised that the previous rating was too high and vulnerable to a change of sentiment. That realisation seems to be affecting many highly rated go-go growth stocks at present.

The excessive IT project costs are of concern but if the management considered that such investment (£33 million to date) was necessary I think I’ll take their word on it for the present. At least the implementation of the remaining modules is being done on a phased approach which suggests some consideration has been given to controlling the costs in the short term.

I attended the AGM of another of my holdings yesterday – Victoria (VCP). They manufacture flooring products such as carpets, tiles, underlay and also distribute synthetic flooring products (I think that means laminates etc). There was a big bust-up at this company back in 2012 in which I was involved. The company was loss making at the time but some major shareholders decided they wanted a change or management and lined up Geoff Wilding who is now Executive Chairman. After an argument over his generous remuneration scheme and several general meetings, it was finally settled. After meeting Geoff I decided he knew more about the carpet business and what was wrong with the company than the previous management and therefore backed him – a wise decision as it turned out. Since then, with aggressive use of debt, he has done a great job of expanding the business by acquisition and this has driven the share price up from 25p to 760p. Needless to say shareholders are happy, but there were only about half a dozen at the AGM in London.

I’ll cover some of the key questions raised, and the answers, in brief. I asked about the rise in administration costs. This arises from the acquisitions and investment in the management team apparently. I also questioned the high amortisation of acquisition intangibles which apparently relates to customer relationships capitalised but was assured this was not abnormal. This is one of those companies, a bit like Abcam, where the “adjusted” or “underlying” figures differ greatly to the “reported” numbers so one has to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is happening. It can be easier to just look at the cash flow.

Incidentally the company still has a large amount of debt because that has been raised to finance acquisitions in addition to the use of equity placings. In response to another question it was stated that the policy is to maintain net debt to EBITDA at a ratio of no more than 2.5 to 3 times. But earnings accretion is an important factor.

Geoff spent a few minutes outlining his approach to acquisitions and their integration which was most revealing. He talked a lot of sense. He will never ever buy a failing company. He wants to buy good companies with enthusiastic management. Thereafter he acts as a coach and wants to avoid disrupting the culture. He said a lot of acquisitions fail as people try to change everything wholesale. One shareholder suggestion this was leading to a “rambling empire” but the CEO advised otherwise.

The impact of Brexit was raised, particularly as there is nothing in the Annual Report on the subject. Were there any contingency plans? Geoff replied that if it is messy it will help Victoria as a lot of carpet is made on the continent and a fall in sterling will also help. He suggested they have lower operational gearing than many people think but obviously they might be affected by changing customer confidence. The CEO said that Brexit is on his “opportunity list”, not his “problem list”.

A question arose about the level of short selling in the stock which seems to have driven down the share price of late. Geoff suggested this was a concerted effort by certain hedge funds but he was confident the share price will recover.

Clearly Geoff Wilding is a key person in this company so the question arose about his future ambitions. He expects to do 2, 3 or 4 acquisitions per year and life would be simpler if he didn’t do so many. He tends to live out of a suitcase at present. But he still hopes to be leading the company in 5 year’s time.

In summary this was a useful meeting and I wish I had purchased more shares years ago but was somewhat put off by the debt levels.

Lastly, there was a very interesting article by Mark Bentley on the Beaufort case in the latest ShareSoc newsletter (if you are not a member already, please join as it covers many important topics for private investors). It seems that the possible “shortfall” in assets was only 0.1% of the claimed assets with only three client accounts unreconciled. But administrators PWC and lawyers Linklaters are racking up millions of pounds in fees when the client assets could have been transferred to other brokers in no time at all and at minimal cost. An absolute disgrace in essence. Be sure you encourage the Government, via your M.P., to reform the relevant legislation to stop this kind of gravy train in future.

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

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

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

Shareholder Voting and Financial Times Generosity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting at General Meetings, Link Asset Services and CentralNic

CentralNic (CNIC) have announced that the proxy voting forms they sent out to shareholders on the register for their forthcoming General Meeting were invalid as it omitted a signature block. So they have sent them out again. As a shareholder in the company, I spotted the error and simply wrote by name and date on the bottom of the form and signed it. That should suffice.

It is a little known fact that you don’t actually need to use the proxy form issued by the company or their registrar so long as your instructions are clear. Which prompts me to talk about the conversation I have been having with Link Asset Services (formerly Capita) about proxy voting.

I complained to them when I received a notice of an AGM by post but no paper proxy voting form. They said I needed to specifically request a paper proxy form or use their on-line portal. The latter is tedious to use and not nearly as simple when you just want to cast votes as the system used by Equiniti. It transpired that on Link’s interpretation of the Companies Act they no longer need to send out proxy voting forms as only the notice of the meeting is legally required. This appears to be correct. This is what I said in a letter to their Operations Director after the exchange of several letters:

“I will continue to submit my proxy votes by post whether you supply a form to do so or not. Where you have not supplied one, I will use my own – I attach a copy of what I will be using. If you have any objections to receiving my proxy votes in that way, please let me know. I do not see how you can legally object as it meets the requirements of the Companies Act.

I note your comments about the low percentage of shareholders who submit proxy votes, and the even lower percentage who do so in physical form [6% and 3.8% reportedly]. The latter may simply be because you and companies are now obstructing those who do not wish to vote on-line by not issuing paper proxy forms!

Overall the low percentage of shareholders voting suggests to me that registrars and companies are not doing enough to both encourage voting and making it easy for shareholders to do so. This is a major concern because shareholder voting is a key part of ensuring good corporate governance in listed companies. The Government recognized this only recently by ensuring there are binding votes on remuneration for example, but obviously if shareholders do not vote then governance is undermined.

It is of course unfortunate that there is a financial incentive for both you and companies to deter shareholder votes as they undoubtedly cost money to process, particularly if they are submitted on paper. But that is not a good justification for adopting the recent changes that Link Asset Services has adopted.

In your letter you rightly point out that registrars are not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. I will be writing to them to encourage them to take on such regulation as it seems totally inappropriate to me that this area of financial markets and corporate governance is not regulated. The FCA should lay down regulations about what Registrars can and cannot do so that voting is maximized regardless of financial considerations.”

I also noted that the Link Asset Services on-line portal does not meet the requirements of the Companies Act for an “electronic address”.

I am writing to both the FCA and the BEIS department asking them to start regulating registrars so as to clarify their responsibilities under the Companies Act and so that voting is encouraged. If necessary the Companies Act should be amended to ensure voting is maximised.

So that anyone can use the generic proxy voting form I have devised I have made it available on my web site here: http://www.roliscon.com/proxy-voting.html

There is also a version you can use where you wish to instruct your stockbroker to vote your shares that are held in a nominee account. Most will do so although there may be a charge and remember that for ISA accounts they have a legal obligation to do so under the ISA regulations.

Please let me know if you have any comments on the use of these forms. If there is sufficient usage they can be made more digitally enabled in future.

Private shareholders do need to vote to make sure that your voice is heard. So please use the forms I have supplied to ensure your votes are recorded for all General Meetings.

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.