Taking Cash From ISAs and IHT Reclaims

If like me you have been selling shares in your ISA during the market crash, you may now have a lot of cash sitting idle in your ISA. Most brokers pay no interest to you on it but prefer to collect it themselves. But now we are into the new tax year, there is a solution to this. Take the cash out and put it on deposit into a high interest current account. You will get over 1% interest.

You can put the cash back into your ISA without losing the tax reliefs so long as you do it within the same tax year (i.e. before April 2021). It is worth checking with your broker or platform provider that their systems support this though – mine certainly does.

If you expect the market to rebound quickly, you may not consider it worth bothering to do this, but the economic news and company results are surely going to be depressing for the next few months. Or as an article in the Financial Times said today: “The UK economy is heading for a recession that is forecast to be deeper than the 2009 financial crisis and one of the most severe since 1900; the coronavirus pandemic has seen consumer demand collapse and many businesses forced to close or significantly reduce operations”. Government moves to stimulate the economy may help but it still uncertain when business will get back to normal so holding cash in an interest paying account makes a lot of sense until the picture is clearer.

There was another interesting point raised in an article in the FT today under the headline “Wealthy seek inheritance tax rebates”. There may have been a number of deaths of elderly and wealthy relatives when stock markets were much higher. Inheritance Tax applies to the value of assets at the date of death, but it can take many months to obtain probate and for an executor to realise the assets. Shares may now be at a lower value so the tax is excessive. But for listed shares you can claim a rebate from HMRC. There is a similar provision for property.

Readers who are exposed to this problem should read the FT article and take professional advice on the subject.

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

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

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

No Budget Surprises from Rishi Sunak

Budget box 3

Chancellor Rishi Sunak just delivered his first budget speech. Bearing in mind how short a time he has had in the job, it’s perhaps not odd that there are no great surprises or revolutions in it.

There are a number of short term measures to counter the economic impact of the coronavirus epidemic on top of the recently announced cut in bank base rate from 0.75% to 0.25% which is surely more of a political gesture than anything because such changes take time to have any impact on the real economy.

There will be a long-term review of business rates but there will be short-term relief for retail and leisure businesses to counter the epidemic impact. The Chancellor is also committing £175 billion to improve economic growth.

The National Insurance threshold will be raised to help the low paid and the planned increase in spirit duty has been cancelled. Fuel duty will remain frozen, when many people expected it to be raised. However red diesel tax relief will be abolished for most sectors other than farmers (it’s news to me that anyone else could use it legally).

Entrepreneurs tax relief will be reformed as widely forecast as it costs the exchequer £2 billion. The lifetime limit will be reduced from £10 million to £1 million. Will that deter entrepreneurs from setting up new businesses? I doubt it.

Twenty-two thousand civil servants will be moved out of London with new Treasury offices in the regions. That will come as a shock to many. Will the Chancellor come under attack from his civil servants like Priti Patel one wonders? But it is surely a positive move to offset the excessive London-centric nature of the economy and the pressure on housing in the South-East.

Some £27 billion will be invested in the strategic road network, including on the A303 that passes Stonehenge.

VAT on digital publications will be abolished so you’ll be able to buy my book “Business Perspective Investing” even cheaper from Amazon – but it’s damn cheap already so I think this may have limited impact except to some educational publishers. It is sensible reform though to align it with paper books.

There is more funding for housing which may help housebuilders and their suppliers and a more general reform of the planning system is forecast. There will be a stamp duty surcharge though for non-UK residents which might affect expensive homes in London but that was widely tipped as something the Chancellor was expected to implement.

For those only aspiring to afford such homes, HMRC is being given more funding to tackle tax avoidance. But the pension tax relief taper relief limit will be raised to £200,000 which may assist many high earners such as NHS consultants. More money is also being given to the NHS although it is not clear whether that and the promise of 40 new hospitals were new commitments or the old ones rehashed.

A closer study of the red book which covers the budget details is required to see if there are any surprises in the small print (see https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/budget-2020 ).

Postscript: One announcement snuck in behind the budget is a consultation on changes to the calculation of RPI by the UK Statistics Authority – see https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/consultation-on-the-reform-to-retail-prices-index-rpi-methodology-2/ .

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

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

 

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

 

 

Objections to Pay at Diploma and the Cost of Zero Carbon

My previous blog post covered the subject of criticism by Slater Investments of many current pay schemes. That at Diploma (DPLM) is a typical example. But at their Annual General Meeting yesterday, which I unfortunately was unable to attend in person as a shareholder, there was a revolt.

The votes cast as disclosed in an RNS statement today were 20% against their new Remuneration Policy and 44% against their Remuneration Report. I voted against both of them of course personally. The board has acknowledged the concerns of shareholders and they will consult further with shareholders plus provide an update within six months.

What is wrong with their remuneration scheme? First pay is simply too high. Over £1 million last year for the CEO when profits were only £62 million and that does not include any LTIP benefits as he is recent joiner. But the CFO got £1.6 million in total. The CEOs pay scheme includes base salary, pension, short term bonus of up to 125% of base (90% achieved) and an LTIP that awards up to 250% of base salary. The Remuneration Report consists of 14 pages when Slater suggests a maximum of two would be sensible. I could go on at length of this subject but in essence the remuneration scheme at Diploma is simply unreasonable and too generous. It displays all the faults that Slater complained about.

I have previously criticised the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions on the grounds of cost. Well known author Bjorn Lomborg has published a good article on this subject in the New York Post. Almost no Governments making similar promises are willing to publish any real cost-benefit analysis. The only nation to have done this to date is New Zealand: the economics institute that the government asked to conduct the analysis found that going carbon neutral by 2050 will cost the country 16% of GDP. If the small nation follows through with the promise, it will cost at least US$5 trillion with negligible impact on temperatures. Just imagine what the cost will be in the UK, for a much bigger economy! See this article for more information:  https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/

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 Political Manifestos and their Impacts on Investors

Here are some comments on the manifestos of the major political parties, now that they are all available. I cover specifically how they might affect investors, the impact of tax changes and the general economic impacts. However most readers will probably have already realised that political manifestos are about bribes to the electorate, or to put it more politely, attempts to meet their concerns and aspirations. However in this particular election, spending commitments certainly seem to be some of the most aggressive ever seen.

Labour Party: I won’t spend a lot of time on this one as most readers of this blog will have already realised that financially it is very negative for the UK economy and for investors. It’s introduced with the headline “It’s time for real change”, but that actually seems to be more a change to revert to 1960s socialism than changes to improve society as a whole. It includes extensive renationalisation of water/energy utility companies and Royal Mail, part nationalisation of BT Group and confiscating 10% of public company shares to give to employees. It also commits to wholesale intervention in the economy by creating a £400 billion “National Transformation Fund”. That appears to include a commitment to revive declining industries, i.e. bail-outs of steel making companies one presumes.  It includes promises to invest in three new electric battery gigafactories and four metal reprocessing plants for steel and a new plastics remanufacturing industry “thus creating thousands of jobs”. This is very much old school socialism which expected that direct intervention in the economy could create new industries and new jobs, but it never really worked as Governments are inept at identifying where money should best be invested. Companies can do that because they have a keen interest in the return that will be made while civil servants do not.

The best comment on the BT proposals was in a letter to the FT by the former head of regulator OFTEL Sir Bryan Carsberg. He said his memory was clear about the shortcomings of BT before privatisation even if many other people do not remember. The lack of competition meant that the company had no incentive to improve efficiency or take advantage of new technological developments. Monopolies are always poor performers in essence.

Trade union law will have the clock turned back with a new Ministry of Employment Rights established. Incredibly there is a commitment to “introducing a legal right to collective consultation on the implementation of new technology in workplaces”. Clearly there are some Luddites in the Labour Party. The more one reads their manifesto, the more it reminds you of years gone by. This writer is old enough to remember the Harold Wilson speech on the “white heat of a scientific revolution” by which he intended to revitalise the UK economy. It only partly happened and at enormous cost. In the same speech he also said that there was “no room for Luddites in the Socialist Party” but that has changed apparently. The manifesto includes a very clear commitment to “rewrite the rules of the economy”. A rise in the minimum wage might also damage companies.

The cost of financing all the commitments is truly enormous, and that is not even taking account of the £58 billion just promised to restore pension commitments lost to some women due to rises in their pension age which is not in the manifesto. Taxes will need to rise substantially to finance all the commitments – that means increases in corporation tax which may damage business, and rises in capital gains tax to equalise it with income tax plus higher rates of income tax for high earners.

But the real damage to UK investors will be the wholesale intervention in the economy in the attempt to create a socialist paradise. And I have not even covered the confusion and contradictions in Labour’s Brexit policy which is downplayed in their manifesto.

Conservative Party: The other main parties are all focusing on Brexit so the Conservative’s title headline in their manifesto is “Get Brexit Done – Unleash Britain’s Potential”.  In comparison with the other parties it is relatively fiscally conservative with no major changes to taxation but some commitments on spending.

Many of their commitments, such as on longer-term social care funding, are subject to consultation but there are some short term increases in that, and for education, for the Police and for the NHS.

Immigration will be restricted by introducing an Australian-style points-based system. This might impose extra costs on some sectors of the economy, but may result in more investment in education/training and more capital investment. This might well increase productivity which is a major problem in the UK.

There is a commitment to invest £100 billion in additional infrastructure such as roads and rail. That includes £28.8 billion on strategic and local roads and £1 billion on a fast-charging network for electric vehicles. Compare that though with the cost of £81 billion now forecast in the manifesto for HS2 a decision on which is left to the Oakervee review.

It is proposed to “review and reform” entrepreneurs tax relief as it is not apparently meeting objectives. There will be further clampdowns on tax evasion and implementation of a Digital Services Tax already planned for 2020.

Reforms are planned to insolvency rules and the audit regime which must be welcomed, but details of what is planned are minimal. They also plan to “improve incentives to attack the problem of excessive executive pay and rewards for failure”. It will be interesting to see how that is going to be done in reality.

There is a plan to create a new independent “Office for Environmental Protection” which will introduce legal targets including for air pollution. This could be very expensive for both companies and individuals. The Government has already committed to a “net zero” carbon target by 2050 but Cambridge Professor Michael Kelly has said that the cost of decarbonising the economy has been grossly underestimated. He has suggested the cost should run into trillions of pounds. But again there are few details in the manifesto on how these commitments will be implemented in practice. Nobody really knows what is the real cost of such a policy.

There are though firm commitments to review the Fixed Term Parliament Act, to retain the “first past the post” voting system, to improve voter identification and reduce fraud, and to avoid Judicial Reviews being used to undermine political democracy. They also commit to review the workings of Parliament – this might lead to a written constitution which this writer thinks is sorely needed to avoid a repeat of recent events which led to gridlock in Parliament and allegedly partisan decisions by both the Speaker and the Supreme Court.

With promises not to increase income tax, VAT or National Insurance (a “triple-tax lock” in addition to the expensive triple lock on pensions which will be retained) this is generally a positive manifesto for most investors and apart from the issues mentioned above should be positive for the economy. A Conservative Government might also restore confidence in overseas investors which may well account for the recent pick-up in the stock market indices as the Conservatives look like they are heading for a significant majority. Such an outcome will also remove some of the uncertainty, if not all, over Brexit which will give more confidence to UK businesses to invest in the future.

In summary the Conservative manifesto is likely to please many and displease few (apart from those opposed to Brexit) so it could be seen as a “safe bet” to avoid any last-minute popularity reversal as happened at the last general election.

The minority parties are losing votes in the polls as they always do when a general election looms and the public realise that there are only two likely candidates for Prime Minister – in this case Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson. Is that a question of whom the public trusts? This was an issue raised in one of the recent panel debates but I think nobody trusts any politicians nowadays. It is more a question of whom the voters personally like as regrettably hardly anyone reads the manifestos.

But here’s a brief view of the minority parties’ platforms:

Brexit Party: Their manifesto (or “Contract with the People” as they prefer to call it), is definitely sketchy in comparison with the two main parties and is many fewer pages in length. They want, unsurprisingly, a “clean-break Brexit”, and they want a “political revolution” to reform the voting system.

They would raise £200 billion to invest in regional regeneration, the support of key sectors of the economy, the young, the High Street and families. Note the traditionally socialist commitment to support “strategic industries”. The £200 billion would be raised by scrapping HS2, saving the EU contribution, recovering money from the EIB and cutting the foreign aid budget, although I am not sure that adds up to £200 billion.

They would scrap Inheritance Tax and scrap interest on student loans and cut VAT on domestic fuel which will all be quite significant costs. They also promise more investment in the NHS but so do all the other parties – at least there is a consensus on that point.

The Liberal Democrat Party:  They have clearly decided their vote winning approach will be a commitment to stop Brexit, i.e. revoke Article 50. They have a strong endorsement of “green” policies and propose a new tax on “frequent-flyers”. That might include Jo Swinson herself it seems as she has taken 77 flights in 18 months according to the Daily Mail.

Two unusual commitments are to legalise cannabis and freeze all train fares (rather like the freeze in London on bus and Underground fares which has resulted in a £1 billion deficit in TfL finances, but even more expensive no doubt).

Corporation Tax would revert to 20% and Capital Gains tax will be unified with income tax with no separate allowances so private investors would certainly be hit.

The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) are focusing on another referendum for an independent Scotland as usual, an unrealistic proposition as no other party is supporting that and it would be make Scotland much poorer, plus a ragbag of populist commitments. They clearly oppose Brexit.  As most readers will not find an SNP candidate standing in their local constituency I shall say no more on the subject. You can also go and read their manifesto on the web where it is easy to find all the party manifestos. Likewise for the Welsh and Irish leaning parties.

In summary, this election is somewhat of a no-brainer for investors unless they feel that the Boris Johnson version of Brexit is going to be very damaging for the UK economy, in which case they have a simple choice – vote LibDem or SNP as Labour’s position is too confusing. Alternatively they can play at “tactical voting” to get the party they want info power. There is more than one tactical voting web site to advise you which is the best alternative option but be wary – they seem to be run by organisations with a preconceived preference.

If readers consider I have missed out anything important from this analysis, please let me know.

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.

BT Nationalisation and Promises, Promises

We are clearly in a run up to a General Election when politicians promise all kinds of “free” gifts to the electorate. The latest promise, even before the manifestos have been published, is the Labour Party’s commitment to give everyone in the UK free broadband. This would be achieved by simply nationalising BT Group (BT.A) apparently.

I just had a quick look at the cost of this commitment. BT actually receives over £15 billion annually according to the last accounts from Consumers and from Openreach. There is some profit margin on that of less than 20% which might be discounted, but there are many households who do not yet have a fibre connection so that would be an additional cost to be covered by the Government.

In addition there would probably be some cost of nationalising BT Group and paying compensation to shareholders. The current market cap of the company is about £19 billion. They might get away with paying £10 billion up front but the annual cost of at least £12 billion to maintain the network would be an enormous burden on the state. They might be able to raise that by taxing multinationals or others but it still makes no sense.

I am not a BT shareholder currently although I am one of their customers. I also remember how dreadful the service from BT was before it was nationalised. It may not be perfect now in comparison with some of their competitors but nationalised industries such as telecoms, the railways, the motor industry, the coal industry, shipbuilding, the gas/electric/water utilities and about 40 others were all abject failures. They typically lost money and provided diabolical service.  The young who are voting socialist may not remember but Jeremy Corbyn should do so.

The fact that the share price of BT only dropped by 1% today (at the time of writing) just shows you how much credibility investors attach to this promise. It also surely shows how desperate the Labour Party is to win some more votes as they are now trailing well behind in the opinion polls.

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.

Mello Event, ProVen and ShareSoc Seminars and Lots More News

It’s been a busy last two days for me with several events attended. The first was on Tuesday when I attended the Mello London event in Chiswick. It was clearly a popular event with attendance up on the previous year. I spoke on Business Perspective Investing and my talk was well attended with an interesting discussion on Burford Capital which I used as an example of a company that fails a lot of my check list rules and hence I have never invested in it. But clearly there are still some fans and defenders of its accounting treatment. It’s always good to get some debate at such presentations.

On Wednesday morning I attended a ProVen VCT shareholder event which turned out to be more interesting than I expected. ProVen manages two VCTs (PVN and PGOO), both of which I hold. It was reported that a lot of investment is going into Adtech, Edtech, Fintech, Cybersecurity and Sustainability driven by large private equity funding. Public markets are declining in terms of the number of listed companies. The ProVen VCTs have achieved returns over 5 years similar to other generalist VCTs but returns have been falling of late. This was attributed to the high investment costs (i.e. deal valuations have been rising for early stage companies) in comparison with a few years back. Basically it was suggested that there is too much VC funding available. Some companies seem to be raising funds just to get them to the next funding round rather than to reach profitability. ProVen prefers to invest in companies focused on the latter. Even from my limited experience in looking at some business angel investment propositions recently, the valuations being suggested for very early stage businesses seem way too high.

This does not bode well for future returns in VCTs of course. In addition the problem is compounded by the new VCT rules which are much tougher such as the fact that they need to be 80% invested and only companies that are less than 7 years old qualify – although there are some exceptions for follow-on investment. Asset backed investments and MBOs are no longer permitted. The changes will mean that VCTs are investing in more risky, small and early stage businesses – often technology focused ones. I suspect this will lean to larger portfolios of many smaller holdings, with more follow-on funding of the successful ones. I am getting wary of putting more money into VCTs until we see how all this works out despite the generous tax reliefs but ProVen might be more experienced than others in the new scenario.

There were very interesting presentations from three of their investee companies – Fnatic (esports business), Picasso Labs (video/image campaign analysis) and Festicket (festival ticketing and business support). All very interesting businesses with CEOs who presented well, but as usual rather short of financial information.

There was also a session on the VCT tax rules for investors which are always worth getting a refresher on as they are so complex. One point that was mentioned which may catch some unawares is that normally when you die all capital gains or losses on VCTs are ignored as they are capital gains tax exempt, and any past income tax reliefs are retained (i.e. the five-year rule for retention does not apply). If you pass the VCT holdings onto your spouse they can continue to receive the dividends tax free but only up to £200,000 worth of VCT holdings transferred as they are considered to be new investments in the tax year of receipt. I hope that I have explained that correctly, but VCTs are certainly an area where expert tax advice is quite essential if you have substantial holdings in them.

One of the speakers at this event criticised Woodford for the naming of the Woodford Equity Income Fund in the same way I have done. It was a very unusual profile of holdings for an equity income fund. Stockopedia have recently published a good analysis of the past holdings in the fund. The latest news from the fund liquidator is that investors in the fund are likely to lose 32% of the remaining value, and it could be as high as 42% in the worst scenario. Investors should call for an inquiry into how this debacle was allowed to happen with recommendations to ensure it does not happen again to unsuspecting and unsophisticated investors.

Later on Wednesday I attended a ShareSoc company presentation seminar with four companies presenting which I will cover very briefly:

Caledonia Mining (CMCL) – profitable gold mining operations in Zimbabwe with expansion plans. Gold mining is always a risky business in my experience and political risks particularly re foreign exchange controls in Zimbabwe make an investment only for the brave in my view. Incidentally big mining company BHP (BHP) announced on Tuesday the appointment of a new CEO, Mike Henry. His pay package is disclosed in detail – it’s a base salary of US$1.7 million, a cash and deferred share bonus (CDP) of up to 120% of base and an LTIP of up to 200% of base, i.e. an overall maximum which I calculate to be over $7 million plus pension. It’s this kind of package that horrifies the low paid and causes many to vote for socialist political parties. I find it quite unjustifiable also, but as I now hold shares in BHP I will be able to give the company my views directly on such over-generous bonus schemes.

Ilika (IKA) – a company now focused on developing solid state batteries. Such batteries have better characteristics than the commonly used Lithium-Ion batteries in many products. Ilika are now developing larger capacity batteries but it may be 2025 before they are price competitive. I have seen this company present before. Interesting technology but whether and when they can get to volumes sufficient to generate profits is anybody’s guess.

Fusion Antibodies (FAB) – a developer of antibodies for large pharma companies and diagnostic applications. This is a rapidly growing sector of the biotechnology industry and for medical applications supplying many new diagnostic and treatment options. I already hold Abcam (ABC) and Bioventix (BVXP) and even got treated recently with a monoclonal antibody (Prolia from Amgen) for osteopenia. One injection that lasts for six months which apparently adjusts a critical protein – or in longer terms “an antibody directed against the receptor activator of the nuclear factor–kappa B ligand (RANKL), which is a key mediator of the resorptive phase of bone remodeling. It decreases bone resorption by inhibiting osteoclast activity”. I am sure readers will understand that! Yes a lot of the science in this area does go over my head.

As regards Fusion Antibodies I did not like their historic focus on project related income and I am not clear what their “USP” is.

As I said in my talk on Tuesday, Abcam has been one of my more successful investments returning a compound total return per annum of 31% Per Annum since 2006. It’s those high consistent returns over many years that generates the high total returns and makes them the ten-baggers, and more. But you did not need to understand the science of antibodies to see why it would be a good investment. But I would need a lot longer than the 30 minutes allowed for my presentation on Tuesday to explain the reasons for my original investment in Abcam and other successful companies. I think I could talk for a whole day on Business Perspective Investing.

Abcam actually held their AGM yesterday so I missed it. But an RNS announcement suggests that although all resolutions were passed, there were significant votes against the re-election of Chairman Peter Allen. Exactly how many I have been unable to find out as their investor relations phone number is not being answered so I have sent them an email. The company suggests the vote was because of concerns about Allen’s other board time commitments but they don’t plan to do anything about it. I also voted against him though for not knowing his responsibility to answer questions from shareholders (see previous blog reports).

The last company presenting at the ShareSoc event was Supermarket Income REIT (SUPR). This is a property investment trust that invests in long leases (average 18 years) and generates a dividend yield of 5% with some capital growth. Typically the leases have RPI linked rent reviews which is fine so long as the Government does not redefine what RPI means. They convinced me that the supermarket sector is not quite such bad news as most retail property businesses as there is still some growth in the sector. Although internet ordering and home delivery is becoming more popular, they are mainly being serviced from existing local sites and nobody is making money from such deliveries (£15 cost). The Ocado business model of using a few large automated sites was suggested to be not viable except in big cities. SUPR may merit a bit more research (I don’t currently hold it).

Other news in the last couple of days of interest was:

It was announced that a Chinese firm was buying British Steel which the Government has been propping up since it went into administration. There is a good editorial in the Financial Times today headlined under “the UK needs to decide if British Steel is strategic”. This news may enable the Government to save the embarrassment of killing off the business with the loss of 4,000 direct jobs and many others indirectly. But we have yet to see what “sweeteners” have been offered to the buyer and there may be “state-aid” issues to be faced. This business has been consistently unprofitable and this comment from the BBC was amusing: “Some industry watchers are suggesting that Scunthorpe, and British Steel’s plant in Hayange in France would allow Jingye to import raw steel from China, finish it into higher value products and stick a “Made in UK” or “Made in France” badge on it”. Is this business really strategic? It is suggested that the ability to make railway track for Network Rail is important but is that not a low-tech rather than high-tech product? I am never happy to see strategically challenged business bailed out when other countries are both better placed to provide the products cheaper and are willing to subsidise the companies doing so.

Another example of the too prevalent problem of defective accounts was reported in the FT today – this time in Halfords (HFD) which I will add to an ever longer list of accounts one cannot trust. The FT reported that the company “has adjusted its accounts to remove £11.7 million of inventory costs from its balance sheet” after a review of its half-year figures by new auditor BDO. KPMG were the previous auditor and it is suggested there has been a “misapplication” of accounting rules where operational costs such as warehousing were treated as inventory. In essence another quite basic mistake not picked up by auditors!

That pro-Brexit supporter Tim Martin, CEO of JD Wetherspoon (JDW) has been pontificating on the iniquities of the UK Corporate Governance Code (or “guaranteed eventual destruction” as he renames it) in the company’s latest Trading Statement as the AGM is coming up soon. For example he says “There can be little doubt that the current system has directly led to the failure or chronic underperformance of many businesses, including banks, supermarkets, and pubs” and “It has also led to the creation of long and almost unreadable annual reports, full of jargon, clichés and platitudes – which confuse more than they enlighten”. I agree with him on the latter point but not about the limit on the length of service of non-executive directors which he opposes. I have seen too many non-execs who have “gone native”, fail to challenge the executives and should have been pensioned off earlier (not that non-execs get paid pensions normally of course. But Tim’s diatribe is well worth reading as he does make some good points – see here: https://tinyurl.com/yz3mso9d .

He has also come under attack for allowing pro-Brexit material to be printed on beer mats in his pubs when the shareholders have not authorised political donations. But that seems to me a very minor issue when so many FTSE CEOs were publicly criticising Brexit, i.e. interfering in politics and using groundless scare stories such as supermarkets running out of fresh produce. I do not hold JDW but it should make for an interesting AGM. A report from anyone who attends it would be welcomed.

Another company I mentioned in my talk on Tuesday was Accesso (ACSO). The business was put up for sale, but offers seemed to be insufficient to get board and shareholder support. The latest news issued by the company says there are “refreshed indications of interest” so discussions are continuing. I still hold a few shares but I think I’ll just wait and see what the outcome is. Trading on news is a good idea in general but trading on the vagaries of guesses, rumours or speculative share price movements, and as to what might happen, is not wise in my view.

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.

 

What Were the Real Returns from VCTs over 24 Years?

I wrote a previous blog article on the merits of Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs) but I thought it worthwhile to actually do some analysis of the capital and dividend returns from some of my historic holdings of such companies. This is not at all easy because most VCTs have been through restructuring or mergers over the years and actually identifying all the dividends received was not easy because I only started using Sharescope after some years which automatically records the dividends and gives the overall returns. But Stockopedia does provide historic dividends for all prior years and all past capital events and dividends were taken into account.

Due to this complexity and effort involved I have only managed to analyse Northern Venture Trust (NVT) which I first purchased in 1995 and British Smaller Companies VCT (BSV) first purchased in 1997. Note that there were later additions of shares in those companies also.

But it is interesting to note that the overall returns, including dividends, on those companies were 3.6% per annum and 2.6% per annum. That’s ignoring the zero tax on the dividend income and the initial income tax relief (and capital gains roll-over relief originally available but no longer). More on this later.

How have these companies performed in capital terms? Both quite badly, managing to both generate a capital loss of 28% and 26% respectively over the years. You can see from these numbers that the capital is effectively turned into dividends and that without the tax reliefs they would not have been good investments, particularly after taking account of inflation over the many years they were held.

However the capital losses are effectively wiped out by the income tax reliefs available. Assuming that was 30% (it was both higher and lower historically), the per annum total return increases to 5.5% for NVT and 3.9% for BSV. Those returns were less than that achieved by investing in the FTSE-100. The compound annual return of the FTSE 100 over the last 25 years was 6.4% with dividends reinvested. Again most of those returns came from dividends rather than capital appreciation.

But the VCT returns (which are mainly obtained via dividends) ignore the fact that the dividends for those are tax free whereas those from the FTSE-100 would be taxed at high rates. Currently that is 32.5% for Higher Rate taxpayers but the rates have varied in the last 25 years so it’s difficult to work out the exact impact. But one can estimate that the benefit of the VCT dividends being tax free probably raises the total return to be similar if not greater than that from investing in the FTSE-100.

Note that I have ignored the capital gains roll-over relief on VCTs that was available on my early investments. It was only a roll-over relief so it can come back and hit you later anyway.

These calculations show how important the tax reliefs on VCTs are to investors. Without the up-front income tax relief and the dividend tax relief, they would not be good investments. That is particularly so bearing in mind the risks of VCT investment – although they have diversified portfolios of smaller companies, some have performed quite badly in the past. The VCTs mentioned happen to be two of the more successful ones. Future Chancellors please note.

VCTs have been very successful at stimulating investment in smaller companies which has contributed to the vibrancy of the UK company in recent years so any withdrawal of reliefs would be very negative.

VCTs are a tricky area for investors in that corporate governance is not always good and management costs are high, particularly due to excessive performance fees. I feel the managers often do better than the investors in such trusts. But VCTs, at least the better ones, do have a place in the portfolios of higher rate taxpayers.

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.