Terry Smith on Market Timing and PI World Presentation by David Thornton

David Thornton, who is the Editor of Growth Company Investor, did an interesting presentation for PI World this week. He made an interesting observation in that he likes to avoid stocks that are both highly valued and lowly valued, i.e. on high or low P/Es. This is very wise. The high P/Es are typically discounting a lot of future growth and show the enthusiasm by investors for the business. In reality the high valuation may be a mirage and is being driven by share price momentum and the keenness by retail investors to get on the bandwagon for small cap shares. At the other extreme, they may be lowly valued because the business has some fundamental weaknesses or big strategic problems. Growth at a Reasonable Price (GARP) may be a better investment strategy for overall long-term performance.

See https://www.piworld.co.uk/2020/07/03/piworld-webinar-david-thornton-small-is-beautiful-why-small-caps-what-to-buy-now/

Terry Smith of Fundsmith has written an interesting article on market timing for the Financial Times. He is very opposed to trying to time the market and suggests that taking your money out of the market, as many people did in March, was a bad mistake. He equates it to driving while only looking in the rear-view mirror.

For an institutional fund manager, who cannot move large positions easily, that may be wise. It has certainly worked out well for the Fundsmith Equity Fund which has bounced back, and more, from its low in March.

But I am not totally convinced that it is wise for all investors. Markets do not always recover rapidly as they have done from the Covid-19 epidemic – at least so far although that story may not yet be ended. In the case of the Wall Street crash of 1929 it took 25 years to fully recover. So taking money out of the market early on might have been very wise.

Hedging your bets by taking some money off the table and hence managing your risk exposure is surely a sensible thing to do when the market is heading down. There are three things to bear in mind though:

  1. Small cap shares such as those on AIM can be very illiquid and hence a few sellers can drive the shares well below fundamental value. These are not the kinds of shares to dump in a market sell off unless they are directly impacted by the negative news (e.g. by the virus epidemic closing their businesses and they are at risk of going bust).

 

  1. You also need to be wary about Investment trusts. These again are often not actively traded so they can suffer not just from declining share prices in their portfolio holdings but from widening share price discounts. When the discounts get very wide, it is time to buy not sell.

 

  1. If you have moved into cash, it is very important to know when to buy back into the market. You need to keep a close eye on the direction of the market because bounces from market lows after a crash can be very rapid. Many retail investors sell at the first hint of a crash, but miss out on the recovery which is very damaging to overall portfolio performance. They miss out because they are demoralised and have lost faith in stock market investment. You do need to take a view though on whether a bounce is just emotional reaction to the realisation that the world may get back to normal, and how the recovery may affect individual stocks. In other words, you may want to move your cash back into different holdings.

As a holder of the Fundsmith Equity Fund, I would not normally argue with his investment wisdom but he may be in a different position to many retail investors. I did take some cash out of the market after the peak bull hysteria of late 2019 and in March after it was clear some companies would be badly hit by the epidemic. This provided some funds for picking up other depressed companies. But Fundsmith was not one I dumped.

The Terry Smith article is here: https://www.fundsmith.co.uk/news/article/2020/07/02/financial-times—there-are-only-two-types-of-investors

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.

 

 

Electronic AGMs and Voting

Several companies in which I hold shares are proposing to adopt new Articles of Association at their Annual General Meetings. These typically are amended to enable the holding of “virtual”, i.e. electronic ones, or “hybrid” meetings where a physical venue (or multiple ones) are also used. They can do that legally at present under the emergency regulations put in place by the Government but they are clearly anticipating a more common use of such capabilities now that everyone is more practised in using video conferencing.

But finding out what the proposed new Articles actually are is often not easy. I simply could not find the one for JPM European Smaller Companies Trust anywhere so I sent them an email. No response to date.

In the case of Telecom Plus, the AGM notice points you to their investor web site for the new articles, but they were difficult to find there and the changes were not clear. This is where they can be found if you scroll down far enough: https://uw.co.uk/investor-relations

You will find the changes very unclear and convoluted. They look like they were written in a hurry. This paragraph is particularly problematic: “59.1 Each Director shall be entitled to attend and speak at any general meeting of the Company. The chairman of the meeting may invite any person to attend and speak at any general meeting of the Company where he considers that this will assist in the deliberations of the meeting.”

This does not give shareholders the absolute right to speak at a General Meeting as is the current position in Company Law so far as I understand it. The Chairman clearly has the right under the proposed new Articles to invite shareholders to speak, or not. That is not the same thing.

So I will be voting against the new Articles.

You might think the wording of a company’s Articles is a very technical matter of little concern. But in reality it can be a quite critical issue when important votes are required or a company is in difficulties.

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.

Wirecard Cash Missing and Black Reparations

I always have pleasure in reporting major accounting frauds as it backs up the argument in my book Business Perspective Investing that the accounts of companies cannot be trusted and you need to look at other things to judge the quality of a company. But investors in German payments company Wirecard will be very disappointed that €1.9 billion has gone missing. It seems that information on “spurious cash balances” had been provided to their auditors (EY) by a third party (a trustee supposedly holding it).

The Financial Times has been running a series of articles over several months questioning the accounts of this company, but the shares are now down another 50% and it raises questions as to whether the company can survive.

Another story in the FT today was of organisations such as brewer Greene King and the Lloyds insurance market offering donations to charities supporting “diversity and inclusion” and were apologising for their past involvement in the slave trade. That’s for events before 1807 in Britain and 1865 in the USA when slavery was abolished. Greene King left the stock market in 2019. I just hope none of the companies in which I hold shares participates in this nonsense. Trying to rectify historic wrongs from 200 years ago is just unrealistic and totally unjustified when the persons affected are long dead. History is full of past injustices and it’s simply impossible to compensate for all of them.

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.

Why the FCA Did Nothing About the Lloyds TSB Abuse

Those who were Lloyds TSB shareholders back in 2009 when they merged with HBOS to form Lloyds Banking Group (LLOY) thought it was bad deal at the time and it certainly turned out to be so. HBOS had many dubious loans to property companies and when the banking crisis arose they were in deep financial difficulty. There seemed very little benefit in the merger for Lloyds shareholders

Subsequently a legal action was launched by the disgruntled Lloyds TSB shareholders which was lost in the High Court in late 2019. I wrote the following to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) soon after:

“I refer to the recent judgement in the High Court in the case of SHARP and Others v BLANK and Others (the case concerning the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB). Although the judge in the case rejected the claim by shareholders in Lloyds, he made it clear in his judgement that there were significant omissions from the prospectus that was issued at the time.

Specifically he says in his Executive Summary: “But I consider that the Circular should have disclosed the existence of the ELA facility, not in terms such as would excite damaging speculation but in terms which indicated its existence”; and “Likewise, I consider that the board ought to have disclosed the Lloyds Repo. The board assumed that because at the time of its grant it had been treated by the authorities as “ordinary course” business that provided an answer to all subsequent questions. But whether it should be disclosed in the Circular as material to an informed decision was a separate question. The Court must answer that question on an objective basis. The size of the facility, the fact that it was extended in tight markets, the fact that it was linked to the Acquisition and was part of a systemic rescue package showed that this was a special contract which ought to have been disclosed”  (see paragraphs 46/47 of the Executive Summary which can be obtained from here:  https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sharp-others-v-blank-others-hbos-judgment/

There were also possible other omissions from the disclosures which the judge did not consider but the above does provide prima facie evidence of a breach of the Prospectus Rules.  The directors of the company (Sir Victor Blank and others) would certainly have been aware of this funding and failing to disclose it was negligent.

Investors in Lloyds TSB (I was one of them) were misled by these omissions and the subsequent outcome was financially very damaging to those investors.

I suggest your organisation needs to look into these matters as a breach of the Prospectus Rules surely is a matter that makes the culprits liable to sanctions under the Rules and there is no statute of limitation in regard to these matters.”

Their response after 5 months delay can be summarised as follows:

  1. The Lloyds Circular was subject to the Listing Rules, not the Prospectus Rules. The FSA approved the Lloyds Circular under those rules.
  2. In the Judgement by Sir Alastair Norris he did not consider whether they breached the FSA rules.
  3. We will not be opening an investigation into these allegations as we are time barred from taking enforcement action (there is a 2-year limit for enforcement action).

In summary therefore, the shareholders were unable to obtain redress by civil action and the FCA proved to be toothless to deal with this matter also. It is very regrettable that the protection that shareholders believed they had against the abuse of directors not acting in their interests proved to be imaginary.

Shareholders were not given all the information to which they were entitled and that fact alone merited action by the FCA. But they have declined to pursue it. Considering the similar case of the Royal Bank of Scotland Rights Issue in 2008, it is very clear that shareholders should not rely on what is said in prospectuses or circulars.

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.

Babcock Dividend, Ocado Placing, AGM Reform and Why Are People So Angry?

To follow up on my previous blog post about Babcock (BAB) and the possibility of it “skipping” its final dividend, the company issued its Final Results this morning and spelled it out. This is what it said about the dividend: “Given the current level of uncertainty over the impact of COVID-19, the Board has decided to defer the decision on our final dividend for the year ended 31 March 2020. We recognise the importance of the dividend to our shareholders and the Board will keep this under review during the financial year as the impact of COVID-19 becomes clearer”. That is not what Shore Capital suggested at all.

Although the company appears to have met forecasts for last year, and says it has a record order book, the share price has fallen 5% at the time of writing. The market in general is down considerably also though.

Ocado (OCDO) announced an institutional placing yesterday together with an offer via Primary Bid to retail investors. Like the one for Segro I commented on yesterday, this is a fund raising for expansion and is at a relatively small discount and dilution. These arrangements are now becoming common but I still don’t like them. They give private investors very little time to decide whether they wish to take up the offer and they do not know what price is being offered. As a holder of Ocado, this is another one I declined to invest in. Ocado share price is down 5.7% this morning at the time of writing which is exactly the same as the discount in the offer to the previous closing price, i.e. you could pick up shares in the market just as cheaply. I suggest companies should do proper rights issues rather than this dubious method and that the FCA should regulate this area more robustly.

There was a good article in the Financial Times today under the headline “Coronavirus casts doubt on the future of AGMs”. It describes the debate over the reform of AGMs and the use of virtual AGMs. It also covered an initiative by organisation ShareAction who are raising money to fund research into the issue. They quote Catherine Howarth as saying “We hope to co-develop a robust framework for AGMs that would still include shareholder votes and which would also help companies interact with a wider range of their important stakeholders including employees, customers, suppliers and communities”. That may be a worthwhile initiative if it makes AGMs more vibrant and useful than they are now but bearing in mind the funding of ShareAction it may not be a totally unbiased proposal.

What we do not want is AGMs dominated by “stakeholders” with political views as happens already at some companies – such as oil and mining company AGMs with endless complaints from environmental activists or defence industry company AGMs dominated by those who believe the company should not be involved in that industry at all. Companies are not in business to right all the social wrongs in the world, but to provide a financial return to their shareholders. They just need to operate within the laws set by national governments. Company law in the UK already requires the company to take the wider interests of stakeholders such as employees or customers into account and they can be represented at AGMs easily enough now by just buying a few shares – you only need one share to attend an AGM.

The FT article does make some good points about virtual AGMs, one of which I commented upon yesterday (EKF Diagnostics). But it suggests that it might cost £10,000 to hold a “hybrid” meeting at a small company. That is surely a grossly excessive estimate if voting is done on a poll. It’s trivial to set up a Zoom meeting for the number of investors likely to attend such a meeting (only a dozen at EKF).

I don’t often comment on general political or economic issues, but I find the current hysteria about the death of George Floyd and the resulting demonstrations over “Black Lives Matter” in the USA and UK totally out of proportion. George Floyd was a very tall and heavy person who it is alleged resisted arrest. He had a past criminal record and was a drug user. The full facts of the case have not yet been revealed and it is way too early to say whether the police used excessive force or not, even if the result was very sad.

As to whether there is wider discrimination against black or coloured people in the USA or the UK is also doubtful. From my experience of working in the USA, there appeared to be very little direct discrimination. Did not Colin Powell become head of the US Army and Secretary of State? Did not Barack Obama become US President? But as in the UK, black people are disadvantaged often by the social and cultural backgrounds of their families. Righting that can only be done by education not by demonstrations or laws. Demonstrations actually make matters worse, and the recent violent ones and attacks on property such as historic statues actually make people less sympathetic to the cause. Meanwhile the failure by the police to stop these events undermines law and order in general, just as happened with the Extinction Rebellion demonstrations.

Why are people so angry that they feel the need to take part in such demonstrations, including many people who are not black and hence could not have personally suffered from any prejudice? You can see the same problem in the divisive politics of Brexit where rational debate soon flew out of the window and it degenerated into personal slanging matches on social media. In fact social media and national media reporting of news has actually coarsened political life. The BBC in particular has often seemed to be more interested in stimulating outrage to improve their readership or programme viewing and web site clicks than in reporting the facts in a neutral and unbiased way. This is not a useful national broadcasting service. It has become a medium for slanted propaganda and for stimulating social unrest. This is a problem that responsible politicians will need to tackle sooner or later. But in the meantime those such as Sadiq Khan in London seem more interested in stimulating political division over trivia with the objective of gaining a few votes.

As investors, my readers will have to face up to these issues sooner or later because when the social fabric of a country crumbles as the result of poor leadership, sooner or later the economy crumbles also.

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.

The New Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

The Government has introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill into Parliament. This is quite an important piece of legislation for share investors and for property investors. Insolvency practitioners will also be interested as it makes substantial changes to that area. It’s had very little media coverage though as the news channels are swamped by coronavirus news, debate over Dominic Cummings breaking the lock-down (or not depending on your point of view) and Brexit news.

The Bill is being “fast tracked” through Parliament as it is considered urgent. Some of the measures in the Bill cover practical problems arising from the epidemic crisis. Some are temporary but others are permanent.

As regards insolvency, the Bill introduces greater flexibility into the insolvency regime. For example, it provides greater powers to ward off creditors and enable directors to escape personal responsibility if they continue trading. It provides a “moratorium” to facilitate a rescue of a business via a company voluntary arrangement (CVA), or a restructuring or fund raising as opposed to it going into administration. The directors can remain in charge of the business while a restructuring plan is put in place, or a scheme of arrangement decided upon. A “monitor” (a licensed insolvency practitioner) has to oversee the process however and give consent to various matters.

It will provide more flexibility for companies in difficulties, while complicating insolvency law, which is complicated enough already. It also includes provisions for companies to ward off winding up petitions during the epidemic crisis which have apparently been used lately by landlords to get rent paid after a “statutory demand” has been issued. In addition while in a moratorium, the company is protected from termination of supply agreements.

In summary this new “moratorium” facility should be a big advantage to companies that are in financial difficulties, and may better protect the interest of shareholders than the existing provisions in insolvency law. Companies in difficulties are too often forced into administration where ordinary shareholders typically receive nothing when a temporary “stay of execution” might enable them to survive and subsequently prosper.

General Meetings

Another aspect of the new Bill are provisions to allow companies to hold General Meetings electronically. Investors will already have seen companies only permitting two shareholders to attend their Annual General Meetings because of the restrictions imposed on public meetings by the Government. The Articles of most companies do not provide for electronic meetings at present.

The new Bill enables any company to use an electronic general meeting, or a hybrid meeting (i.e. some people physically present and some accessing it electronically). Companies can also delay their AGMs. These provisions are only temporary. Companies can also delay their account filings.

The Bill gives companies the right to run meetings as they see fit. For example it says: “The meeting need not be held at any particular place; The meeting may be held, and any votes may be permitted to be cast, by electronic means or any other means; The meeting may be held without any number of those participating in the meeting being together at the same place; A member of the qualifying body does not have a right— (a) to attend the meeting in person, (b) to participate in the meeting other than by voting, or (c) to vote by particular means.”.

This may be acceptable in the short term, during the epidemic crisis, but I have suggested to the ShareSoc directors that the organisation should draw up some recommendations for how “virtual” or “hybrid” meetings should be held in future. The experience to date of such meetings is very unsatisfactory, with answers to questions not being given at the meeting for example. Not having the interactivity of a physical meeting with at least some members present is also a severe disadvantage.

Some bigger companies have already updated their Articles to permit such meetings but a recommended set of Articles should also be published that do not simply give the directors the power to run such meetings as they see fit.

For more details of the Bill’s provisions, see https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-21/corporateinsolvencyandgovernance.html.

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.

Unsatisfactory Avast AGM, and Designated Accounts

I “attended” the Avast (AVST) Annual General Meeting today. This was of course held on-line using Zoom with only one director in physical attendance (Warren Finegold) who chaired the meeting. Zoom seems to be becoming the de facto standard for on-line meetings.

The Chairman of the company, John Schwarz, gave a brief presentation backed up by some slides. To summarise, it was another strong year of growth and profitability. A new CEO is now in place. EBITDA was up 8% with strong cash generation and hence there was a steady reduction in debt. They added 400,000 paying customers making a new total of 12.6 million. There were numerous new product releases and dividends are up 8.1%.

But nobody could raise questions at the meeting. In addition, although shareholders could submit questions in advance, these were not answered at the meeting. Overall this was a totally unsatisfactory way of conducting an on-line AGM.

Votes were taken on a poll to be declared later, but the proxy counts were quickly flashed on the screen. I noticed Belinda Richards managed to get 13.7% of the independent shareholder votes against her. I wonder why.

The whole meeting was over in 15 minutes.

Apparently customers of The Share Centre have been notified that there are new terms and conditions which cover the future use of designated nominee accounts. This will be a major step forward in investor protection and shareholder enfranchisement. Most brokers, like the Share Centre, use only “pooled” nominee accounts where your holdings are jumbled up with those of all their other customers. It relies on the brokers sorting out who owns what, which can sometimes prove to be not at all easy if a broker gets into financial difficulties. Designated accounts contain both the broker and end customer identification on the share register and hence are by far preferable.

It will be interesting to see how they support such accounts, and whether it will be affected by the proposed merger with Interactive Investor. This was approved by a vote on the 8th April but there has been no further news.

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.

Is it Elecosoft or Eleco? And Electronic Meetings.

One company I hold is building software company Elecosoft (ELCO). I have just received the notice of the Annual General Meeting and one oddity is that they have a resolution on there to change the name of the company to Eleco.  But surely the company used to be named that but amended it when they changed to focus on the software side of the business. So why the reversion? No explanation is provided so far as I can  see.

Another confusion in the notice is that there is a proposed change to the Articles to permit electronic general meetings. That will be solely at the discretion of the Chairman but reading the detail it is not at all clear how electronic meetings are supposed to work. For example, they still include provision for a “show of hands” vote but how does one show one’s hand electronically?

As with many other companies, they are not permitting anyone but two people to attend the AGM. You may be able to attend electronically but no questions are possible. But they may be hosting an event later in the year where shareholders will be able to ask questions in person.

It would certainly be helpful to have clarity on the above issues, and as most companies are dispensing with physical meeting, at least temporarily, it would surely be a good idea for the FCA to lay down some regulations on how electronic meetings should operate rather than letting every company to make up their own.

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.

Dividend Cut at Elecosoft, Dignity Trading and Public Transport Problems

Many investors are suffering from dividend cuts by companies. The latest one in my portfolio is Elecosoft (ELCO), a company that produces software for the construction sector. In their announcement of the full year results this morning they indicated revenue and earnings were much as forecast to December, and cash flow was good enough to put them in a net cash position.

Normally these results would not have caused any concerns that the dividend would be reduced or cancelled, but not this year. Even though they only previously paid small dividends and half the “cost” as a scrip dividend, this year’s final dividend has been cancelled. This is what the company had to say:

“Proposed Dividend: Elecosoft’s strong trading performance and cash generation in 2019, and, ironically, the strong start to trading in 2020, would normally have warranted the payment of an increased final dividend. However, having regard to the uncertainties created by the Coronavirus situation and the need to conserve our cash resources, the Board has decided to not recommend a final dividend”.

I don’t normally like to challenge the wisdom of management, who may know more than me about the trading position of the company and future revenue, but this does look at first glance to be excessively cautious. That is particularly so bearing in mind they could have paid it as a scrip dividend if they wished to conserve cash. ShareSoc has published some comments and written to the FRC, FCA and BEIS on the problem of dividend cuts suggesting they should issue some guidance. That seems to be a sensible suggestion because at present we don’t know whether this is just management panicking or being simply prudent.

One company that should surely be benefiting from the coronavirus epidemic is funeral provider Dignity (DTY) – I do not hold the shares. More deaths surely mean more business for them. But in their trading update today they show that it is not that simple. The company says the following:

“The absolute number of deaths increased by approximately one per cent to 161,000 from 159,000 in the comparative period last year. Sadly, since the end of the quarter, the UK has witnessed in excess of 20,000 deaths in a single week, the highest since the beginning of 2000. The number of possible incremental deaths as a result of COVID-19 is a matter of substantial speculation. Should 2020 witness a large number of incremental deaths, beyond the 600,000 originally anticipated by the Office for National Statistics, then it is possible that 2021 and 2022 could experience a lower number of deaths than in 2019. The Group will not speculate on the most likely outcome”.

In addition there is the problem that as many people cannot attend funerals, some funerals are being postponed or executors are opting for lower cost funeral packages. Dignity was already suffering from aggressive price competition which had prompted a strategic review before the latest crisis arose.

The company had previously decided to suspend dividend payments. Like Elecosoft they apparently are simply unable to forecast the likely impact of the epidemic on their business. So no guidance for 2020 is being provided.

On Saturday the 9th May Grant Shapps, Transport Secretary, said that only 10% of former public transport capacity will be available in some locations if social distancing is to be maintained. It seems likely that will be so for many months even if people are permitted to go back to work. This will clearly cause major problems in London where almost all commuters use public transport such as trains, the underground and buses.

After the Prime Minister spoke on the 10th May, Mr Shapps issued this tweet: “Speaking this evening the PM was clear – if you’re going back to work in a job that cannot be done from home, please avoid public transport if possible. Go by car, or even better, cycle or walk. To help, we’ve announced more than £2bn in the biggest ever boost to cycling and walking”.

An example of how problematic London transport has become is a report in the Times that says Transport for London (TfL) has asked the Government for £2 billion. To quote: “TfL is down to its last £1bn, which is being burnt at a rate of £21m a day — leaving it less than two months from emptying its coffers and illustrating the intense pressure on local authority finances”. The article suggests the Government will attach some strings to any funding.

Mr Shapps was clearly right to point out the public transport capacity problem, but his apparent remedy to get everyone walking and cycling makes little sense. It is a typical view of politicians who can afford to live in central London. But for the vast majority of London commuters who travel many miles to get to work, it’s simply impractical even if they are keen cyclists.

Mr Shapps also justified his proposals by saying the epidemic is a great health opportunity to encourage active travel with the objective to double cycling by 2025. He also proposes to implement at least one “zero emission” city, and argues that one of the few positives will be improved air quality. He actually said there are “more than 20,000 extra deaths a year attributed to NO2 emissions”.

This figure is nonsense. It repeats the past allegation of 40,000 deaths from air pollution in the UK which has been shown to be simply wrong and a corruption of statistical evidence. In reality, there may be a few months shortening of life expectancy from all air pollution sources, a lot of which cannot be removed such as natural sources. But the figure is essentially uncertain and it is clear there are no deaths directly attributable to pollution. To specifically indicate NO2, which mainly comes from transport, as being the problem is also wrong when the Government advisory body COMEAP could not even agree that NO2 contributed to the negative impact on health of air pollution from particulates.

Mr Shapps clearly knows little about air pollution and its impact on health but is using his ignorance to put a positive spin on his actions in response to the transport crisis.

Just to show how there is no direct correlation between traffic levels and air pollution, this is what the London Air Quality Network (LAQN) recently reported: “Levels of the pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has reduced significantly during lockdown, research from King’s College London has found. Concentrations of NO2 have lowered as much as 55% due to less road traffic. However, levels of PM10 and PM2.5 were higher after lockdown than at any other time in 2020, due to easterly winds and pollutants from northern Europe”. The reduction in NO2 is perhaps not surprising when measurements by the LAQN are often taken at the roadside so will be heavily influenced by adjacent traffic. But as particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) are of much greater health concern you can see that Mr Shapps’ spin on the air pollution issue is somewhat misleading. Other UK cities have also shown no direct correlation between traffic reduction from the epidemic and air pollution – at least to date.

The air pollution problem is much more complex than can be solved by encouraging walking and cycling alone.

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.

Exemplary Remuneration at Judges Scientific

I recently commented negatively on the remuneration section of the Annual Reports of Greggs and Avast. Today I read another Annual Report from Judges Scientific (JDG) and it’s a completely different story.

I have held shares in this company which is a scientific instrument maker since 2010. The share price then was 327p. It’s now 4940p. Led by CEO David Cicurel in that period, as the Annual Report says the “Management is focused on shareholder value – profitability, cash generation, debt reduction, dividend growth and return on capital”. Return on Total Invested Capital last year was 31.4% and according to ShareScope my compound annual return from holding the shares has been 25.6% per annum.

What more could shareholders want? Perhaps a directors’ remuneration scheme that is simple and reasonable! Judges certainly meets that requirement.

The Remuneration Report is only 3 pages which is all we could wish for. For executive directors there is a reasonable base salary plus an annual bonus of 25% of salary if earnings per share targets are met and are higher than a previous high watermark. They also receive share options issued at market value (not at zero cost note), and there is also a performance condition attached to those.

In total the remuneration of all directors, including the non-executives, was £816,000 when post-tax profits were about £11 million. The CEO received £243,000. Another good point is that there is a vote on remuneration at the AGM which many AIM companies choose to omit. I don’t think there will be many Judges shareholders voting against that resolution.

Why cannot all public companies have such simple remuneration schemes? And with a level of remuneration that is not excessive?

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.