Chas Stanley Prices Crest Membership At Ridiculous Level

Charles Stanley have sent out a letter to all their customers who use Personal Crest accounts that in future they will be charged £504 per annum (inc. VAT). Although the company stopped offering the service to new customers some time ago, existing users have in some cases been paying nothing to be a Personal Crest member. They clearly want to get rid of all such users of their service, including those using the low-cost Chas Stanley Direct platform because £504 is not likely to be an economically justifiable fee for most people.

They claim in the letter that there is a gap between what they charge for the service and the effort and costs involved as a Crest sponsor. Is this really true though? Almost all stock market trades go through the Crest system whether you are in nominee account or Personal Crest account. So why should it cost more?

In reality they are probably just trying to “simplify and standardise their service to cut costs and improve the service to clients” as they recently announced. But there are major advantages to having a Personal Crest account. You are on the share register of the company so the shares are clearly owned by you unlike in a nominee account. In addition you get the dividends on the shares paid directly to you instead of it sitting in a broker’s account earning them interest rather than you. Clients would probably be willing to pay a reasonable fee for the service, but not £504.

The only saving part of the announcement is that they are offering a free transfer to another Crest sponsor free of charge. I imagine many people will take up that offer although there are not many alternatives. I suggest clients of Chas Stanley who are affected by this change also send in complaints about this change.

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 Trust and Funds Event and ShareSoc AGM

I managed to attend part of the Mello Trust and Funds Event in West London yesterday and although I had other commitments today, I may manage to attend the second day of the main Mello 2019 event tomorrow. If you have not attended one of these events before, it is definitely worth doing so. The only slight criticism I would have is that getting to Chiswick from South East London where I live via the slow District Line is not great. The wonders of the London transport network meant it almost took me two hours to get there. I’ll give a brief report on the sessions I attended, and what particularly interested me:

There was a good presentation by the young and enthusiastic George Cooke on the Montanaro European Smaller Companies Trust (MTE). This is a company I had not come across before and it looks to have a good performance record. It’s a stock pickers fund in essence but Mr Cooke’s approach to small cap company research seems similar to mine. However he covers the whole of Europe whereas my focus on direct investments is the UK. I will take a more in-depth look at this company.

I attended a panel session on investing in small cap funds and one member of the audience questioned why one would do so when you can invest in the companies directly. Here are two possible reasons: It can give you exposure to geographic or sector areas that you cannot adequately research oneself (as in MTE), and for UK funds it is always interesting to see what the high-performing fund managers are buying and selling even if you only get a limited view. That’s why I invest both directly in companies and in funds.

I also attended a presentation by Carl Harald Janson on International Biotechnology Trust (IBT) a company I already hold so I did not learn a great deal new. This is a sector specialist with a good track record and it is now paying dividends out of capital which has help to close the discount to NAV when it used to be quite high. The discount is now negligible.

Several stand staffers in the exhibit area tried to sell me “income” funds but that proved difficult as I had to tell them I never buy income funds. For long-term returns, growth funds usually provide better performance and you can always sell a few shares to produce cash income – and you may be better off tax-wise also as a result. But many people buy funds for retirement income so they are attracted by the “income” name. This is where more financial education might be beneficial.

The last presentation I saw was by Nick Britton of the AIC (Association of Investment Companies who represent investment companies). Their web site is always useful for researching investment trusts and their past performance, which I tend to prefer as against open-ended funds although I do own a few of the latter.

Nick covered the differences between the two types of funds (open versus closed). His presentation suggested that closed-end funds consistently performed better for several reasons and he compared some funds of both types run by the same manager as evidence. There are a number of reasons why closed-end funds perform better in the long term and I was convinced by the statistics on this a long time ago. But Nick gave some more data on the subject.

So why do open-ended funds dominate the fund industry (£1.2 trillion versus £189 billion funds under management)? I rather expected that after the Retail Distribution Review (RDR) that platforms would no longer have a strong financial incentive to promote open-ended funds but it seems there are other reasons remaining which are not exactly clear. But it’s the investors who are suckered into buying open-ended funds who should know better. Like in most markets, folks buy what they are sold rather than do their own research and buy the best option. That’s particularly problematic on property funds which Nick was particularly scathing about.

I hope ShareSoc members are better informed. Which brings me on to the subject of their AGM which was held at the Mello meeting. This was a relatively straightforward event as there were no controversies of significance, although I did suggest that with more funds in the bank they might want to hire more staff and spend more on marketing. As one of the two newly appointed directors pointed out, few investors have heard of ShareSoc although they do enormously good work in promoting the interest of private investors and in educating them. In my experience, sales of anything often relate simply to how much money is spent on marketing even if some attention has to be paid to the most cost-effective channels. But if you don’t know what works best, you just have to experiment until you find the most productive approaches.

However ShareSoc membership is growing and it’s now twice the size of UKSA with whom merger discussions are now taking place – which I wholeheartedly support incidentally. There are also discussions taking place about supporting Signet activities, who run investor discussion groups, following the recent death of John Lander who led Signet for many years.

ShareSoc is spending money though on improving their back-end membership system which will help to improve the services provided to members.

In summary this was a useful event, and like all such meetings, as useful for networking and picking up gossip as much as from learning from the formal sessions.

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.

Good News – Autonomy CFO Jailed

Good news – former CFO of public company jailed for fiddling the accounts. Oh to see that happen more often so as to deter manipulation of accounts that is so prevalent and so damaging to investors.

Sushovan Hussain, the former CFO of software company Autonomy, was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment by a US Court yesterday plus he was fined $4 million and ordered to forfeit $6.1 million he made from the sale of the company to Hewlett-Packard. He won’t even be spending time in a cushy minimum-security prison as he is a foreign national. He was found guilty some months ago on 16 counts of security fraud and other counts. In essence the allegation was that sales were inflated in the accounts and the result was that when HP bought the company, they had to write off much of the $11 billion they paid for it.

Although Autonomy was a UK public company, and the Serious Fraud Office did look at the case they decided to do nothing. However a civil action against Mr Hussain and the former Autonomy CEO, Mike Lynch is still being pursued in the English courts, and the latter also faces criminal charges in the USA.

Mr Hussain is planning to appeal the verdict. Let us hope he does not succeed because such cases provide a good deterrent to future malefactors.

These were some of the allegations against Autonomy:

  • Booking transactions to resellers as revenue when there was no end-user license (i.e. “channel stuffing” as it is sometimes called).
  • Engaging in “round-trip” transactions where purchases were invented so it could pay money to companies which then returned it to Autonomy to cover fictitious sales.
  • Backdating sales transactions so they fell into a previous accounting period.

There was also a claim that bundles of hardware/software sales were treated as solely software in the accounts. Why does this matter? Because software sales are valued in company valuations much more highly than hardware sales.

The above are some of the things that investors in IT companies need to look at although abuse can be difficult to spot in the published accounts of a public company. High accounts receivable and apparent lengthy payment delays can be clues. There were some questions raised about Autonomy’s accounts even before the takeover.

Hussain and Lynch have claimed that some of the disputed differences were simply down to different accounting standards (US GAAP versus IFRS) and I said when originally commenting on the case that I was unsure that this stood up to scrutiny. The US Court judge clearly rejected that argument.

But the sad thing is of course that we rarely see such cases pursued to criminal convictions in the UK, whether they are large or small companies.

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.

 

Wey Education News

Wey Education (WEY) published a very positive half-year report his morning. This small AIM-listed company operates in the on-line education field and I have written about it several times in the past (you can search the blog for previous posts). Under its former Executive Chairman, David Massie, who sadly died, it launched an ambitious expansion programme including overseas ventures in Kenya, Nigeria and China. They have written off those and closed down operations in London (total cost £881k) and will be concentrating on their UK InterHigh and Academy 21 businesses in future.

The good news is that turnover is up 55% and adjusted profits on continuing operations is both positive and very substantially up. The share price is up over 50% today at the time of writing. Possibly helped by share commentator Paul Scott saying he had bought some recently.

There is a great need for the alternative education to conventional schools that Wey provides so let us hope they are now heading in the right direction, albeit that there is some competition in this sector.

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.

Changes Proposed at Companies House

The Government BEIS Department have recently proposed a number of important changes to the way Companies House operates in a public consultation entitled “Corporate Transparency and Register Reform” (see https://tinyurl.com/yysf9gdn ). Here’s a brief summary of the main points:

This consultation will be of interest to anyone who is a director of a private or a public company, or a major shareholder in such a company (i.e. those People with Significant Control). Even directors of the smallest companies could be affected.

A major proposal is to verify the identity of directors and to collect more information on them (although not their email address apparently, which I have suggested be added). This can now be done very quickly and at minimal cost electronically using various verification services (e.g. listed GB Group in which I hold shares). This will help to prevent fraud and they even hope to be able to link all directorships in various companies together. For example, this might make it easier to track the past activities and record of directors which even in small listed companies can be very informative as to their competence and reliability.

They propose to continue to retain the records of dissolved companies for 20 years which many investors consider important and is useful for investigators of all kinds.

They also plan some changes to improve the protection of personal information held at Companies House. Bearing in mind that there are well over 6 million records of directorships, with significant personal information, this is clearly important.

For public company investors there are two significant proposals:

1 – Improved digital tagging standards for accounts, which might make it simply to provide information services based on them.

2 – A possible cap on the number of directorships any one person can hold. There are common complaints about “overboarding” where directors take on too many roles. I have suggested a maximum of 5 in public companies, with some possible exemptions, should be imposed.

In general the proposals seem eminently sensible and I suggest they be supported on the whole. You can see my detailed comments in a response submitted to the consultation here: https://tinyurl.com/y6j9u4do 

But you should of course submit your own comments on those points of interest to you.

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.

Offer for Share Centre Canned and Changes at Charles Stanley

Interactive Investor Services have announced they do not intend to make an offer for the Share Centre (Share Plc – SHRE) as previously mooted. That’s probably a relief for users of that platform.

But users of the Charles Stanley (CAY) broking services may have concerns as the company announced this morning that they are going to simplify and standardise their service to cut costs and improve the service to clients. Some staff will be cut but the impact on customers is not yet clear.

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.

International Biotechnology Trust Performance Chart Incorrect

International Biotechnology Trust (IBT) have acknowledged that their Interim Report contained a major error after I pointed it out to them.

The Figure 4 chart showing their share price performance against the FTSE AllShare showed them massively underperforming when the opposite is in fact the case. The chart lines were wrongly labeled. A corrected version is now on their web site.

I was about to review my holding in this company after looking at the incorrect version until I realised it could not be right. I hope other investors were not confused or confounded by this error.

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.