Northern 2 VCT AGM – A Totally Undemocratic Affair

I attended the Northern 2 VCT Annual General Meeting yesterday via Zoom. This was a most disappointing event.

There were three directors physically present and Tim Levett gave an overview of the company’s new investments and the top ten holdings. But when it came to the formal business they took a show of hands vote which is totally meaningless when only the directors were permitted to be present.

They did show the proxy counts, so they may have won a poll vote anyway but that is not the point. It should have been a poll vote.

The Chairman did suggest they would answer questions submitted prior to the event, but they did not specifically respond to the comments I submitted in advance. These were:

A – There are too many directors on the board who have served for more for more than 9 years. Too long! [in fact there are three out of five with more than 9 years which is contrary to the UK Corporate Governance Code unless reasons are given.  They did refer to the AIC Code but I do not accept that this should be used and it is simply not good enough for other directors to simply say they consider them independent. Is length of service a problem? I certainly think so. One only has to consider the recent case of Wirecard where the 75-year-old Mr Matthias had been Chairman for more than a decade until recently. Would such a massive fraud have taken place if the board had been regularly revived? In investment trusts it is particularly problematic as the directors can build very close and inappropriate relationships with the fund managers].

B – There is no clear statement of total return for the year in the Annual Report, and percentage change over the prior year). [There was no reference to this at all by the directors, but on my calculation it was -3.9% last year. That’s actually better than some other VCTs. Many VCTs had to mark down the valuations of some of their early stage businesses, but as the results were only to the end of March, there may be worse news to come].

Despite the use of Zoom, there was no interaction with the audience whatsoever with no opportunity to ask supplementary questions. I have no idea even how many shareholders attended.

A quite disappointing event and not how to run an AGM even bearing in mind the current restrictions.  

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.

Victoria and Downing One VCT Annual Reports, and Rio Tinto Mea Culpa

With it being all quiet on the financial front, with a lot of people on holiday, I had the time to read a couple of Annual Reports over the weekend. First came Victoria (VCP), a producer of flooring products (carpets and tiles) in which I have a relatively small holding. Chairman Geoff Wilding always has some interesting things to say and their Annual Report is an exemplary model of shareholder enlightenment.

He commences with this statement: “There is an old Yiddish adage which, loosely translated, says “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans”. It is safe to say that when Victoria developed its business plan for 2020/21 at the start of this year, we did not factor in the complete economic shutdown in most of the various countries in which we operate”. He does briefly cover the latest business position but the Annual Report covers the year to the end of March so it is mainly historic data.

It was interesting to read this section: “A core element of our UK growth strategy, made possible due to the scale of our business, is our logistics operation, Alliance Flooring Distribution. 18 months ago, we made the decision to invest heavily in logistics, accepting the consequential temporary loss of some margin, in the belief that our customers – flooring retailers – would highly value reliable on-time delivery of carpet, cut precisely to size for a specific consumer order. This has meant that they can hold less inventory, freeing up cash from their working capital, and devote more space in their stores to point of sale rather than using it to warehouse product, and reduce waste, improving their margins. (Carpet is produced in rolls 25m long. However, houses rarely need exactly a full roll and retailers would invariably be left with a typical leftover 2-3m “short end”, which would be thrown away. In contrast, given our high volume of orders and sophisticated cutting planning software, our wastage is much lower). And this is exactly how it has turned out”.

Going back into history, in 1980 I developed a similar system for Harris Carpets to establish a computer system to optimise their central carpet cutting operations and minimise “remnants” or “short-ends”. This proved to be one of their key competitive advantages. Similar systems have been used by other big carpet retailers and distributors since, but the carpet market is still dominated by smallish local operations so you can see the advantages that Victoria might gain.

The second annual report I read was that of Downing One VCT (DDV1). Apart from a very poor financial performance for the second year running, the report fails to cover several important items.

Firstly there is no information on the length of service of the directors, nor their ages. It is now convention not to report the ages of directors which I consider unfortunate but they should at least state when they joined the board so we can see their length of service. Ages can of course be easily looked up at Companies House – they are 60, 71 and 75 years for the three directors.  Are ages and length of service important? I think they are simply from my experience of boards and their performance.

But the really big omission is that the substantial loss reported of £23.8 million partly included a “Provision for doubtful income” under Other Expenses of £2.1 million in Note 5 to the Accounts. What is that? I cannot spot any explanation in the report. I have sent a request for more information to the company.

Rio Tinto (RIO) published an abject apology this morning for their destruction of a cultural heritage site in Juukan Gorge in Australia. They say “The board review concluded that while Rio Tinto had obtained legal authority to impact the Juukan rockshelters, it fell short of the Standards and internal guidance that Rio Tinto sets for itself, over and above its legal obligations. The review found no single root cause or error that directly resulted in the destruction of the rockshelters. It was the result of a series of decisions, actions and omissions over an extended period of time, underpinned by flaws in systems, data sharing, engagement within the company and with the PKKP, and poor decision-making”. They propose a number of improvements to avoid the problems in future. In the meantime they are knocking off £2.7 million from the possible bonuses under the STIP and LTIP schemes available to CEO J-S Jacques and large amounts from two other senior executives. That should hurt enough I think. 

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.

Big Miners, Moneysupermarket and Winning Against the Odds

Looks like we are back to a normal English summer – rain every other day and cool. But there are a few things to talk about.

Yesterday BHP Group (BHP) published their results to the end of June yesterday. Revenue and earnings were slightly below forecasts and the dividend was reduced by 10% as profits were down. But hey, when so many companies are cutting out their dividends altogether this is surely not going to worry many people. They still managed to achieve a return on capital of 17% and underlying eps was up. The shares fell only slightly as a result.

Today Rio Tinto (RIO) reported that production of refined copper in 2020 is now forecast to be lower by about 30% due to delays in restarting a smelter after planned maintenance. The share price is actually up today slightly at the time of writing, perhaps because copper is a relatively small part of their portfolio.

Both companies are very reliant on consumption of commodities such as iron ore in China, and China is still forecast to have economic growth this year despite the Covid-19 epidemic, unlike many other countries. Both companies are working hard to improve their ESG credentials after some recent mis-steps. Ignoring that, these companies still look good value to me (I hold both).

I used to be a holder of Moneysupermarket (MONY) shares but sold most of them in March when I was cutting my exposure to the stock market and weeding out the underperformers in the epidemic rout. Recently my house insurance came up for renewal and the broker I had used for many years gave a renewal quotation that was up 12% on last year. So I thought I would look for a cheaper quote on Moneysupermarket. They produced three quotations only one of which was cheaper and they insisted we replaced our newly installed alarm system for reasons I could not understand. So I then looked at other alternatives and got a quote from LV (Liverpool Victoria as was) that was less than 50% of all the other quotations. The moral is that it can be cheaper to go to direct providers. Is this why Moneysupermarket has not been growing earnings of late? Perhaps they are not producing competitive quotations?

Another good book for summer holiday reading is “Winning Against the Odds”, the recently published autobiography of Stuart Wheeler. He died in July and had a very interesting career.  He was a big gambler and founded IG Index which developed into a major spread-betting company from which he made many millions of pounds eventually.

One section of the book talks about his visits to Las Vegas where he made money by using a card counting technique on Blackjack. But he clearly liked to bet on almost anything.

I visited Las Vegas several times for computer software conferences. But I avoided the gaming tables and slot machines.  I did have some interest when a teenager in betting but not after the age of 18. To win at card games, betting on horses or sports results requires a great deal of hard work to be successful. I think there are easier ways to make money such as betting on stock market shares.

One of Stuart Wheeler’s friends was the late Jim Slater, financier and author of books on stock market investment. One of his sons is Mark Slater who runs a fund called the Slater Growth Fund, and others. I don’t hold them because I prefer investment trusts to open-ended funds but he is certainly a good “active” manager. They sent me the latest update on the Growth Fund today and it’s good to see that their fund asset chart over the last few months appears to match my portfolio. At least I am keeping up with the professionals.

The latter part of Wheeler’s book covers his involvement with politics although he seemed to have no great adherence to any political stance, apart from his belief in capitalism and his desire to depart from the EU. He did donate £5 million to the Conservative Party which was the biggest donation at the time to them. But they later expelled him from the party after he started to support UKIP.

Politically the last few years have been some of the most exciting in my lifetime. Politics used to be a very boring subject but now it has captured the imagination of the public with everyone forming opinions on the parties, their leaders and their policies. Rational analysis often gets lost in the fierce debates. Brexit alone was and is a very divisive subject. 

The leaders have been a very mixed bunch indeed and Wheeler sticks the knife into both Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May. But he was careful not to say a lot about Boris Johnson. I think he might have preferred Michael Gove as Conservative Party leader but I do not see him as being very electable.

In summary, it’s an interesting book and an easy read.

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.

Cash Held by Brokers, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

The Daily Telegraph ran an interesting article today on the amount of client cash held by stockbrokers and what they earn from it. Most brokers pay no interest on cash held in broking accounts, but get significant interest on it that they retain for themselves. They singled out Hargreaves Lansdown who apparently received £91 million in the last 12 months (to June) for some criticism. They obtained a margin of 0.75% on the cash held.

Many investors moved out of the stock market during the March epidemic rout but left the cash in their broking accounts rather than move it out, mainly because it’s takes effort and can be tricky to do so with ISAs and even more so with SIPPs.

But you can take cash out of an ISA and put it back in later, just so long as you put it back in within the same tax year. In fact I took quite a lot of cash out of our ISAs and with the market recovering strongly I am moving some back in. I did not expect the recovery to take place until much later in the calendar year. It’s quite difficult to understand why the market is recovering so quickly. Perhaps investors are looking further ahead than the short term poor economic numbers, or are betting on a vaccine working and soon (the FT reported on Russia going into production with one). But I never try to figure out the rationality of the market – I just follow the market trend but selectively about which shares I am buying and selling.

There is a great deal of irrationality in the world at present. A good example was a webinar I attended this morning run by Landor Links on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). These are being promoted by the Government and frequently consist of road closures using the euphemistically named “modal filters” Several of the speakers promoted the wonders of such schemes typically using slides showing the joy of cycling in sunny weather. They failed to cover how the residents of boroughs such as Waltham Forest got to vote on the proposals, before or after implementation. I know there is a very large amount of opposition in Waltham Forest, in Lewisham in the Oval area, in Islington and several other parts of London. But the Covid-19 epidemic is being used to justify emergency measures without any public consultation.

It’s all quite disgraceful as democracy is being undermined and the road network is being destroyed. Traffic congestion in Lewisham for example has been made a lot worse to my personal knowledge and that’s even before the schools return. Labour controlled Councils are frequently a particular problem as they tend to like to decide what is good for you rather than listening to their electorate or taking into account any rational arguments.

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.

Virtual AGMs and How Innovation Works

The Financial Times ran an article today headlined “What’s an AGM without a chat with directors over a prawn sandwich?”. It covered the lack of attractiveness of AGMs now that there are only virtual electronic ones, if any at all, that shareholders can attend. I added this comment to the article on their web site:

“It is most disappointing that many companies are failing to hold virtual AGMs while the epidemic is around. AGMs are a valuable opportunity to ask questions of directors, both formally and informally. But as most have been held in London that means physical attendance for many was not practical. The best solution is a hybrid AGM where people can attend in person or electronically.

The smaller the company, the more valuable the AGM becomes. If they don’t want to hold formal AGMs electronically they could at least provide a seminar for shareholders to attend. But the FCA should draw up some firm rules that stop companies avoiding doing anything.

I am one of those people who regularly attends AGMs and I find them essential to learn more about companies and their management”.

There were a number of other good comments posted, but it is most unfortunate that the FT’s article writer talked about the free lunches and other goodies. Personally I could not care less about the lunches and frequently avoid them. The offered buffets I have found to be a good source of an upset tummy.

Anyway it was good to see today that Polar Capital Technology (PCT) are going to hold a virtual AGM on the 2ndof September. This will not just provide on-line access to the meeting but also support on-line voting using the Lumi Global web site or App (see  https://www.lumiglobal.com/ ). They also support hybrid AGMs which may be useful when the epidemic is over. I am a firm supporter of hybrid AGMs when normality returns as not many people can spare the time to attend meetings in person, particularly if they live remotely from the venue. But physical attendance is still the best if you want to chat informally to the directors, or fellow shareholders, so I would not want to see conventional AGMs abandoned in place of solely virtual meetings.

Polar Capital Technology are of course one of the big investors in innovative technology companies. I am just finishing reading a recently published book by Matt Ridley entitled “How Innovation Works”. I can certainly recommend it for summer holiday reading.

He dispels the myth of the lone inventor or genius creating leap forwards in products by covering many of the histories of past inventions such as the steam engine, the light bulb, the computer, the airplane and the adoption of farming – in other words a very wide period of history. The research that has gone into this book must have been very extensive indeed as so many examples are covered.

What conclusions are drawn? That innovation is typically a collaborative process of many minds and it is frequently difficult to pin down the first inventor. They often all learn from each other. He also looks at what environments encourage innovation and what discourage them. A wealthy and free society helps, while Government direction and monopolies are disadvantages. Few innovations come directly from scientific research financed by Governments or others.

The author emphasizes that innovation is often a gradual process with no great leaps forward in reality – it often just appears so in hindsight. For those investing in technology companies it’s well worth reading to understand why some companies are successful and others not. It certainly matches my experience of working in the software industry.

Now it’s the height of summer, and our windows are open, the flies are swarming into our houses. I recently purchased a great product which I consider a major step forward in fly killing. It’s a typical innovation in other words. It’s like a tennis racket but has wires connected to a battery in the handle that enable you to swat the flies and they instantly get fried when they touch the wires. No more swatting flies with newspapers and leaving squashed flies. Who invented this product? I have not been able to find out. But it is clearly a development of large mains powered fly killers that one saw on the walls of shops in the past. A photograph is below.

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.

FCA Seminar and Property Funds Rule Change

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is consulting on a rule change for open-ended property funds. The problem of such funds holding illiquid investments in direct property are well known. If investors want to sell when property goes out of favour, the funds simply cannot sell their underlying holdings fast enough. It can take months to do so when investors in the funds expect their cash immediately. Or as the FCA puts in, there is a mismatch between the liquidity offered to investors in the funds, and the liquidity of the fund’s holdings.

This problem has resulted in the funds having to be “suspended” or “gated” to stop redemptions, and many still are after the March crash this year.

The FCA’s solution is to require investors to give notice before they can get their cash – potentially up to 180 days. But this would probably mean that investors would not be able to hold such funds in ISAs, unless their rules are changed. Needless to say, investors who currently do so are not going to be best pleased as they would have to sell them.

This is a very simplistic solution to a long-standing problem, and to my mind may not solve the problem as disposing of property can take longer than 180 days if you want to obtain a fair value for it. Permitting illiquid investments of any kind to be held in open-ended funds is simply wrong.

Such funds should be wound up, or converted to investment trusts which is surely not impossible. Meanwhile I won’t personally be responding to this consultation as I am not so daft to hold such funds, only property investment trusts.

See the FCA press release here for details: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-consults-new-rules-improve-open-ended-property-fund-structures  and for how to respond to the consultation.

Yesterday the FCA presented at a seminar hosted by ShareSoc and UKSA as a webinar. Mark Seward was the speaker from the FCA but he did not cover the above issue at all (he is responsible for “Enforcement and Market Oversight”).

He did cover the outcome of the Redcentric case where grossly misleading accounts were published. He said the investors had “purchased a lemon”. They did not fine the company, but the company is compensating the shareholders affected and 3 former executives are awaiting trial. He explained the reasons for the FCA’s actions which seemed reasonable to me (I never held the shares though – those more familiar with the case might have a different view). He also mentioned the Burford case and the legal decision re disclosure of trading data and made some uncalled for derogatory remarks about the comments made on it by some ShareSoc members.

He covered the emergency measures introduced by the FCA for the Covid-19 epidemic which he said enabled the UK markets to raise 3 times more capital than any other European market in the first half of the year. But Mark Northway raised the issue of the problems of private investors participating in these fund raisings. I would also have liked to see the issue raised of companies not providing access to AGMs nor any other means for shareholders to talk to the directors while the epidemic rages.  

Another issue discussed was the outright refusal of the FCA to provide any information on the progress of an investigation. This is exceedingly frustrating for investors as it means after a complaint is made, there is no apparent action for many months if not years. When many of the facts are reasonably well known and in the public domain already (as in the Redcentric case, or in other cases such as those of Globo or Patisserie) this can appear quite unreasonable.

Mark Seward suggested that no regulatory body (for example, the Police) discloses anything about their investigations, partly because the evidence might disappear if they did. But this is simply not true. The Police often inform victims of crimes about the progress of a case, sometimes albeit on a confidential basis. Victims and the police are also entitled to follow the “Code of Practice for Victims of Crime” published by the Government which the police have to adhere to (but not the FCA who are specifically excluded for no good reason).

The seminar was not altogether a waste of time, but could have had a much sharper agenda.

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.

On the Wealth of Nations

The stock market’s in the doldrums and August is coming up when everyone goes on holiday. But I would guess many of my readers will not be going far, or not at all. You may need some lightweight tome to read on your sofa or on the beach though, so here is a book I have just finished and can recommend.  

It’s called “On the Wealth of Nations” by P.J. O’Rourke. First published in 2007 and claiming to be a New York Times Bestseller, it’s a digest and analysis of that venerable book of the same title by Adam Smith which was published in 1776. I tried reading that book many years ago but found it heavy going. It’s long and in a somewhat archaic style but it was the foundation of much subsequent thought in economics. For anyone interested in the worlds of business and finance, it provides a primer on the division of labour, productivity, and free markets.

P.J. O’Rourke is a very unlikely person to take a stab at popularising Adam Smith’s book but he makes a very fine job of it. He is a comic writer and wit whose reporting on the war in Iraq and in motoring stories in such books as “Give War a Chance” and Holidays in Hell” are also worth reading.

O’Rourke relates much of Smith’s adages, aphorisms, epigrams, insights, observations, maxims, axioms, judicious perceptions and prejudiced opinions (which Smith produced in large numbers) to the modern world. Here’s one example: “The freedom of the market, though of uncertain fairness, is better than the shackles of government, where unfairness is perfectly certain”.

Smith lived before the rise of modern capitalism and the importance of the joint stock company. But he wisely had this to say (as O’Rourke quotes) that as the result of an immense capital divided among an immense number of proprietors [shareholders]:  “It was naturally to be expected therefore, that folly, negligence, and profusion should prevail in the whole management of their affairs”. That’s still true of many companies is it not?

O’Rourke relates two very amusing anecdotes about Smith and his absentmindedness. He is supposed to have gone out into the garden in his dressing gown and, lost in thought, wandered into the road. He walked to Dunfermline, fifteen miles away, before steeple bells broke his reverie and he realised he was wearing his robe and slippers in the midst of a crowd going to church.

At another time, deeply involved in conversation over breakfast, he put bread and butter and boiling water into a teapot and then pronounced it was the worst cup of tea he had ever had.

Some of the issues that Smith discussed in his book such as whether to support free trade or not, what are good taxes or bad taxes, and what level they should be at, are still the subject of topical debate.

In summary O’Rourke’s book is easy reading but still prompts much thought on the world of business, economics and politics.

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.

Tech Stocks Bubble Bursting? And Is Stockpicking a Waste of Time?

The bubble in technology stocks seems to be bursting. There were a couple of interesting articles published in Shares Magazine and in the Financial Times this week. The first was headlined “Tech Stock Mania”. It suggested investors had been piling into technology stocks in volumes not seen since the dotcom bubble of 1993/2000 which I well remember. That was an age when the market valuations of such companies became totally detached from reality and the fundamentals on which you value companies. The mantra was that growth was everything to capture market share in the brave new computer software and internet world. Is it different now?

Technology stocks have been attractive of late because revenue growth is still there and the avoidance of personal contact has driven the need for more digitization and for new software products. Shopping has moved decisively to the internet and video tools and social media have become more widely used. Zoom’s share price has risen by 260% since the start of 2020 and electric car maker Tesla almost as much making the company the most valuable car producer in the world, even though they produce relatively few cars. There was a general rise in all the big technology shares this year until a sell-off in mid-July. It appeared that the increase in valuations was being driven by momentum as investors bought in response to share price rises, which is a great merry-go-round if you can jump on and off at the right point. Just looking at the vertiginous charts of some of these companies can spook you. It’s not that I am a great follower of charts, but when I see a rise in the share price faster than any growth in sales or profits, then this tells me that the market is getting over-excited.

I am of course a great believer in the merit of technology companies where growth can be achieved but past technology giants did not always grow for ever – IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Oracle are good examples. Management errors in not keeping up with technology and market changes are usually the cause, i.e. they collapse like empires from their own internal weaknesses.

I have to admit to recently selling a few shares in the large investment trusts that invest in technology companies – you can guess which they are. The private investors and institutions who buy the shares in such trusts may have even less real view of what is happening in the real world and hence their share price discounts have shrunk to zero or are even negative.

The mega-cap technology stocks such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook now represent more than a fifth of the US stock market according to an article in the FT. That is surely a dangerous level of concentration. Investors seem to think that such companies are not just defensive because of their near-monopoly control of certain markets, but that they still have growth opportunities. They may be right but there is a limit to how much you should pay for any business when the valuation is founded on future growth. Sometimes the growth disappears as markets become saturated and the valuation then crashes as valuations are a discounted calculation of future earnings.

The big winners from the technology boom have been stock-pickers. But Chris Dillow wrote an article for Investors Chronicle a week ago that was headlined “The Impossibility of Long-Term Stockpicking”. It argued that because few listed stocks survive for many years on the market, you are wasting your time stock-picking. Also only 1.3% of shares accounted for all the rise in global markets between 1990 and 2018 according to academic research. The three companies that accounted for 6% of it were Apple, Microsoft and Amazon which were never sure bets if you look at their history.

Mr Dillow therefore argues that as you have no hope of picking the winners you might as well buy an index tracking fund, and you would have done better to hold cash than invest in small cap stocks on AIM.

The article is well worth reading but I am not convinced. My investment portfolio has done better than the FTSE-Allshare over the last 20 years. It might apply to unsophisticated investors that an index tracker may give a good return with minimal effort but you do have to take into account the management charges. You also need to consider what index to follow – global index tracker of large companies perhaps? If so you will have significant exposure to currency risk and the fact that large companies generally underperform. You still have to make some investment decisions and they won’t be any easier than studying individual companies.

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.

Capital Gains Tax Reform? Surely Long Overdue

Last week the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) announced a review of Capital Gains Tax. They have invited evidence and there is a simple on-line survey you can complete on the subject (see link below). As someone who occasionally pays capital gains tax, I give you my views on the subject below.

It is of course a horribly complex tax with several different rates and numerous exemptions. I need to employ an accountant to work out my self-assessment tax returns when I don’t consider my affairs particularly complex – I am mainly invested in listed shares, although I do have a few EIS and VCT investments. My accountants use specialist software to do the calculations, not generally available to retail investors and even that seems to be prone to complex misunderstandings.

This also puts a great burden on HMRC in terms of administration when it brings in less than 1% of tax revenues. Plus there is an enormous amount of effort put in by investors and their advisors to avoid paying the tax (there are lots of ways to do so). Indeed one could argue that the current Capital Gains tax regime was invented by accountants as a “make work” project due to the complexity of the rules.

Should the tax be scrapped altogether as some people have suggested? I don’t think so for the following reason: It is very easy to convert income into capital gains, or vice versa. I recall this was done many years ago by the Beatles when instead of receiving royalties they sold the revenue stream from music royalties as an asset. But even private investors can do this – for example by investing in investment trusts that roll up the income and don’t pay it out in dividends. Another example is that of Venture Capital Trusts which are often effectively converting capital gains into tax free dividends. Or of course investors can simply avoid trading in individual shares and invest in trusts or funds which are not taxed on their individual holdings and realisations thereof.

It is therefore irrational to have different rates for capital gains and income which is currently the arrangement.  That’s clearly one simplification that could be made, although investors will be furious if they have to pay more tax as a result.

But one big problem is the lack of indexation of capital gains which was scrapped some years ago by Gordon Brown and replaced by allowances. This means that you pay tax not on the real change in the value of a share, but on that created simply by inflation when the shares are worth no more in reality. This may not seem a major issue in a period of low inflation, but with money being printed like it is going out of fashion by Governments, high inflation might well return. Even a low rate of inflation over many years can result in a very large tax bill, and even worse, you may not have the option to retain the holding. A takeover bid for a company can effectively force a sale. Indexation should be reinstated as it was not difficult to take it into account in your tax returns.

Capital Gains Tax also distorts investment decisions. For example, you might hold on to a shareholding longer than you otherwise would because you know a large tax bill will result. So your portfolio may end up containing a lot of companies with poor prospects and their market share prices might remain higher than they otherwise would be, i.e. the market in the shares is distorted.

It also causes sales of shares to take place when they might not be best timed, simply to use up capital gains tax allowances in the current tax year. Or even to anticipate changes to tax rates and allowances by decisions from new Chancellors or new Governments.

The existing arrangements encourage the use of investment trusts and funds rather than personal investors holding individual shares. This has had a negative impact on the stock market as investment decisions are now made by fund managers rather than real owners. It has also meant that much of the profits generated by public companies end up in the hands of the fund manager rather than the end investor who rake off 1%, 2% or more per annum which can often be a very high proportion of the real return generated by companies. It also has a negative influence on corporate governance as fund managers have little interest in controlling the pay of directors for example. In effect we have a lot of absentee owners.

These defects might be considered an argument for scrapping CGT altogether but that is unlikely. However, an alternative proposal would be to reform it so that a rollover of investments did not incur tax. In other words, if you reinvested the proceeds from a sale of shares or other assets into new assets within a period of time then no tax would be payable. If no net profit is actually realised, why should investors pay tax?

Do people even care about paying tax on their profits when they die? Capital gains tax liability currently disappears on death and that might need to be changed if rollover was permitted but there is also interaction with Inheritance Tax here which would also need to be reconsidered.

Property is taxed at different rates, although the property you live in is exempt. This has of course encouraged people to invest in a home as an asset for their retirement. This has powered the house price bonanza in recent years and encouraged people to occupy bigger houses than they need. Although encouraging home ownership is meritorious, it is not clear why gains from owning a home should be tax free. Reforming this could be a political hot potato although a “roll-over” provision and other exemptions could mitigate the adverse consequences.

Capital Gains Tax has always had a negative impact on business creators although there are allowances that reduce their liability when a business is sold. Much tax planning activity is prompted by such outcomes which typically undermines the tax take. Another related issue is that high capital gains tax rates encourage wealthy entrepreneurs to move to countries where capital gains taxes are lower or even zero. We lose their expertise and also they spend their money in other countries as a result.

In summary Capital Gains Tax is ineffective, generates relatively little in tax from very few individuals and is a disincentive to entrepreneurial activity. It can result in tax being paid on purely inflated share prices and when no actual cash is realised as the profits are soon reinvested. It does of course discourage therefore new investment and distorts the stock market.

In my opinion, capital gains tax needs a complete overhaul. If you agree, or disagree, please add some comments to this article. I’ll ponder those before making a full submission to the OTS review.

OTS Capital Gains Tax Review: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ots-capital-gains-tax-review-call-for-evidence-and-survey

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.

Coronavirus News, AstraZeneca Vaccine, Bowling Alleys and Boeing 747s Retired

The UK death count from the Covid-19 virus is now 45,233. At least that’s the latest figure available because daily reports of deaths have now been suspended because the statistic is now known to be unreliable. Anyone who was identified as a Covid-19 infected person but later died from any cause is identified as a Covid-19 death. The result is that someone who was at death’s door from cancer before infection is counted as a Covid-19 death. Even someone who is run over by a bus is likewise included. This is truly bizarre and the Government has ordered an investigation.

The good news is that a second vaccine candidate looks like it might be effective. This is the one produced by Oxford University and which AstraZeneca (AZN) is gearing up to manufacture and distribute in volume. The share price of the company perked up on Friday as a result based on press reports and rumours although the trial results are not due to be published in the Lancet until Monday. Whether they will really make any money from this product remains to be seen. I only hold a few shares in the company and will wait to see a clearer view before buying more.

The other good news is that bowling alleys and other similar entertainment venues such as casinos will be able to reopen on the 1st August. But there will be restrictions on bowling alleys with only alternate lanes open, players limited to groups of 6 and they will be offered gloves to wear. Also bowling shoes are out.

I always thought the provision of shoes was a bit odd now that everyone is wearing trainers or other rubber/plastic soled shoes as I thought the original purpose was to protect the wooden runway. It seems that bowling shoes also enable the players to slide along the surface but only professionals actually do that. Bowling shoes may now die out.

CFO of Hollywood Bowl Lawrence Keen was quoted by the BBC as saying: “At 50% capacity, the company will still be profitable, albeit just”. I own a few shares in both Hollywood Bowl (BOWL) and Ten Entertainment (TEG) but again I think it is best to wait and see whether the players return before buying more shares.

Other news was the announcement by BA that they are “retiring” their entire fleet of Boeing 747s. With 31 planes they are the largest operator of the planes in the world.

As airline passenger numbers are much reduced from the epidemic impact, BA clearly sees little chance of filling the planes in future, and you need to fill a 747 to make them economic operationally. Boeing 747s were first made operational in about 1970 and unbelievably are still being manufactured, albeit with a lot of updates such as improved engines. They are still in demand for cargo flights due to their large capacity. What’s the price of a good second-hand 747-400? About $12 million, although I suspect prices are falling rapidly.

Memories: I recall the original promotional videos for the plane which featured lots of space to walk around in “lounges” with a bar at one end. In reality they soon crammed in as many passengers as possible and were hence not particularly comfortable, particularly in economy class. Some planes were configured to use the “upper deck” which one reached via stairs and I do recall at least one trip in that location. But the large number of passengers always meant it took a long time to unload and load, with long queues at passport control resulting.  Certainly a plane to avoid for passengers in my opinion even if you were flying business or first class. There was a certain comfort in having four engines in case one or two failed, but aircraft engines improved in reliability over the years so the initial doubts about flying more fuel efficient twin-engined planes soon vanished.

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.