AIM Rules – Response to Consultation

The London Stock Exchange (LSE) is currently undertaking a consultation on the AIM Market Rules (see http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/advisers/aim-notices/aim-discussion-paper-july-2017.pdf ).

Anyone can respond to this and the deadline is the 8th September. Those who invest in AIM shares will be aware of some of the past problems in AIM companies and tightening up some of the Rules that apply to AIM companies may surely help to improve the quality of the market. For example, it covers new rules that might help AIM to be more selective in regard to the companies that list on the market.

I have submitted a response to this consultation which is here: http://www.roliscon.com/Roliscon-Response-AIM-Rules-Review.pdf

Investors in AIM should do likewise, otherwise the responses will be dominated by Nomads and company promoters.

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

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

Investment styles – Phil Oakley, Richard Beddard and Roger Lawson

Last week Phil Oakley, who mainly writes for ShareScope/SharePad, published a very interesting article entitled “A Blueprint for Better Long Term Investing”. This described his investment style in essence and contained lots of good tips from an experienced stock market analyst. For example: “Focus on businesses not stocks”, “Don’t overpay for quality companies” and “Avoid information overload”. It’s well worth reading and is here in full: Oakley-Article

Experienced investor Richard Beddard also joined that company recently and published an article entitled “Shares to Hold to the Grave, and Beyond…”. Again it covers his investment style and how he analyses companies. It can be read in full here: Beddard-Article

As both of their styles are similar to my own investment approach, I thought I would have a stab at a similar type of article to cover my own investment style, particularly as there seem to be some popular misconceptions about it, and some misreporting on it of late. That is also a good starting point to some further plans for writing about stock market investment that I have. My article is entitled “My Investment Philosophy” and is present here: Lawson-Article

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

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

Northern Rock 10 Years After

Both the Times and Financial Times covered the tenth anniversary of the nationalization of Northern Rock today. Dennis Grainger is still fighting to get some compensation for shareholders from the nationalization and says the Government stands to make billions of pounds profit from the bank after paying zero compensation to shareholders. He is undoubtedly right that the Government will turn a good profit on these events, as they always planned to do.

He and others such as Pradeep Chand described in an article in the FT Weekend supplement lost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Was the bank a basket case, or do they have a genuine grievance? The fact that they and other investors are still fighting for compensation ten years later tells you how aggrieved they feel. Mr Grainger hopes to put his case to Theresa May.

Incidentally the shareholders in Bradford and Bingley (B&B), led by David Blundell, are also still fighting a similar case over the nationalization without compensation of that company. The same legislation was used to do so.

As I was involved in the campaign and subsequent legal case, let me give you a few simple facts about the case:

Northern Rock was not balance sheet insolvent, but ran out of cash after a run on the bank by depositors (driven by media scare stories) and their inability to raise more money market funds (nobody was lending to anyone else at the time).

This would normally have caused the Bank of England to step in as “lender of last resort” to provide liquidity but then Governor Mervyn King declined to do so because of the “moral hazard” risk. That was a fatal mistake not likely to have been made by his predecessors.

The then Labour Government subsequently passed legislation to nationalise the bank and ensured there was no independent and fair valuation of the shares by writing the Nationalization Act with wording that ensured an abnormal and artificial valuation process which guaranteed a zero valuation. So the ensuing claims that it was a “fair and independent” valuation are nonsense. The Treasury is reported as repeating that claim in the FT article today.

In reality Labour politicians decided to ensure that two large hedge funds who had invested in the company and were willing to support it should get nothing because they were the kind of people they hated. Smaller shareholders in Northern Rock were not recognized as being of importance.

The nationalization legislation used against Northern Rock and B&B ensures that if the Government has lent any sum of money to a bank, then they can nationalize it without compensation. This made UK banks untouchable by many foreign lenders or investors with dire consequences later for other banks such as RBS. In the case of B&B they even concealed that they had lent it money until much later so as not to scare investors. Incidentally while that legislation is still available to the Government, that is one reason why I won’t be buying shares in UK banks – it increases their risk profile very substantially.

A legal case was pursued to the Supreme Court on the nationalization (a Judicial Review), but they would not overturn the will of Parliament. A claim to the European Court of Human Rights was submitted but they refused to even hear the case which was very unexpected as they had ruled in other nationalization cases that fair compensation should be given.

Those are the key facts and all the other mud that was slung at Northern Rock claiming it was a dubious business by a concerted campaign of disinformation was most unfortunate, and basically inaccurate.

A company that cannot meet its debts when they become due, and is hence cash flow insolvent, can be argued to be worth little. But there was funding available to Northern Rock (it was trading for months after the “run” and before it was nationalized). But salvage law sets a good precedent for what is fair compensation when someone rescues a sinking ship. The same should have applied to a sinking bank.

So in summary, I support the efforts of Dennis Grainger and others to get compensation to the ordinary shareholders out of the profits that have accrued to the Government as a result.

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

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

Corporate Governance Reform and Pay – No Revolution

Yesterday the Government published its response to the consultation on the green paper entitled “Corporate Governance Reform”. The paper aimed to tackle some of the perceived problems in UK public companies and Theresa May hoped that it would tackle “the unacceptable face of capitalism” demonstrated by outrageous pay levels in some companies as she described it.

Has it done that? Well most of the responses from the media suggested not with comments such as “watered down” being printed as tougher binding votes on pay have been dropped (possibly because of legislative log-jams in Parliament), and workers on boards not supported. However, we do have a commitment to publish pay ratios of employees to directors – not that this writer thinks that will help much.

If you read the full Government response (present here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/640631/corporate-governance-reform-government-response.pdf ), you can see that the Government has responded in many detail ways to the consultation responses. As in UK politics in general, particularly when your party has a narrow majority and many other problems on their minds, no revolutions are advocated. Just minor improvements, and more red tape, are the order of the day.

Not that I expected any great result from the matters being considered in the consultation. This is what I said in my personal response to the consultation back in February:

“As regards director pay, the document makes clear that despite more obligations on companies on reporting and voting on pay introduced in 2013, not a lot has changed in reality. Although there is widespread public concern about pay levels, the paper notes that the average vote in favour of remuneration reports was 93% (see page 19) and only one binding vote has been lost. I certainly support further significant reform in this area. The key problem is that remuneration of directors is still decided by the same directors and there is very little external input from shareholders, employees or other stakeholders before it is put to a vote at an AGM – but this is too late and institutions hate voting against directors’ wishes. 

In addition, retail shareholders have little say and are effectively disenfranchised because of the widespread use of the nominee system. A substantial reform of this area of company law and the activities of stockbrokers and company registrars needs to be undertaken to fix that problem. All shareholders (including beneficial owners in nominee accounts) should be on the share registers of companies with full rights as members of the company including voting, information and other rights.

Shareholder Committees are a core part of the solution to the problems of corporate governance. There are many other aspects of corporate governance that can be improved. However, without Shareholder Committees, and concomitant reform to restore the rights of individual shareholders, other amendments to corporate governance are unlikely to produce meaningful change.”

NONE OF THESE THREE POINTS HAS BEEN TACKLED IN THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE.

There are some detailed proposals to encourage more “engagement” between boards and their shareholders plus employees which might be welcome, but whether they will have any real impact is very doubtful. So long as directors can ignore you, some will do so – a typical recent example is Sports Direct.

ShareSoc/UKSA have issued a joint press release which is very critical of the Government’s response particularly about the proposal that the Investment Association keeps a register of “infringements”. John Hunter is quoted as saying: “Asking the Investment Association to keep a register of ‘baddies’ has all the authority and credibility of appointing foxes to keep a register of poor builders of chicken coops!” 

One has to agree with ShareSoc and UKSA that this is a very disappointing outcome. It looks a classic case of Government civil servants and politicians having little understanding of how companies work and the dynamics of boards, as usual, and have listened to the fat cats in preference to others.

In summary, TOO TIMID is my final comment.

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

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

FT Article on Small Investor Voting

Yesterday in the FTMoney supplement, FT writer Aime Williams explained how small investors could influence companies. But unfortunately it misled readers on some points. I have sent Aime the following communication:

“I read your article entitled “Small investors stand up and be counted” in this weekend’s FT with interest. It is good that the article shows how private investors can have an impact on companies, and it will no doubt encourage people to attend AGMs.

But the comments from Richard Stone of the Share Centre are to say the least, somewhat inaccurate. The 2006 Companies Act did help to enfranchise those in nominee accounts in relation to giving them the ability to vote, but to say that ‘investors in nominee accounts have had the same rights as direct shareholders since the 2006 Companies Act’ is simply wrong. For example, Members of the company (i.e. those on the share register) have the ability to challenge a poll, or apply to a court to object to a change from a public to a private company. Those rights are lost if you are only a beneficial owner in a nominee account. That has been confirmed in past legal cases.

There is also the problem that there is no legal obligation for brokers to enfranchise investors except in the case of ISA accounts, and most stockbrokers do not even inform their clients of that fact or make it practically easy for them to vote. The Share Centre does but many do not. In addition there are difficulties with AIM companies.

In reality the widespread adoption of nominee accounts rather than investors being on the share register of a company has fatally undermined shareholder democracy and the vast majority of retail investors now do not vote.

The documents on this web page, which I wrote, spell out the facts about the nominee system and shareholder rights: https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/shareholder-rights-campaign/

It is still true that we need a complete reform of the existing system so that shareholders in companies, however they hold their shares, are given the ability to vote and to attend General Meetings, without artificial barriers. We also need regulations to ensure that they can vote easily and that Companies and Brokers inform everyone entitled to vote or attend meetings when the time arises to do so. Only then will shareholder democracy be restored.”

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

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

Hate Crime, Fake News and Market Abuse

Yesterday saw a lot of media coverage after the Crown Prosecution Service announced that online offences of “hate crime” would in future be treated as seriously as offline offences. This is in response to the rising volume of such abuse on social media.

What is a “hate crime”? In summary, it is abuse based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. Why just those categories? Don’t ask me – I am looking forward to abuse of baldies and fatties being made hate crimes. But this is just one aspect of the problems created by social media where anonymous posters can attack anyone whose views they do not like. Anyone in public life now regularly suffers the most vile comments from people who do not like their opinions – just ask any Member of Parliament who can tell you about it. Indeed, I have suffered from it myself.

Sometimes they do this because they know they can hide behind an anonymous google or hotmail account on the net, or by using a fictitious name. But even when it is clear who they are, there is little legal or social pressure to inhibit them. Indeed a new word has been invented to cover such behaviour – internet “troll”, which Wikipedia defines “as a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll’s amusement.”

In extremis this can degenerate into “harassment” which is now a criminal offence in the UK, in addition to being subject to civil claims. For example, repetition of false allegations that cause alarm or distress is harassment. Again this is so much easier to propagate on the internet and in social media. Indeed one problem is that it can be going on without the victim being aware of it because there are now so many different platforms on which it can appear that even monitoring for it is not easy.

Another very topical subject which is linked to the above is that of “fake news” which allegedly had an impact on the US Presidential election and the Brexit vote in the UK. In effect, social media can be used maliciously to distribute false information with the intention of changing public opinion.

This can also be seen in financial markets where fake news can be used to affect share prices. Just create a rumour about a takeover bid on social media and the share price of a company will take off before the company can even deny it. Profits can be made from such behaviour, and even if the company denies it they may not be believed. Now simple cases like this are undoubtedly offences under the Financial Services and Markets Act but there are very few convictions for it. Social media have become impossible to police by the authorities in practice.

A Commons Select Committee was inquiring into fake news before the General Election caused the inquiry to be abandoned (along with all other business in Parliament). See https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/ . No report will be produced, but there was a substantial number of submissions to the inquiry. One that is particularly worth reading as it covers the abuses of financial commentators is present here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/fake-news/written/48219.html

For example, it says: “Short selling and market abuse – FN (Fake News) is a short sellers dream.  Before the advent of online FN short sellers had to rely on word of mouth rumour and the occasional share tipster. Today the magnification possible wields instant and widespread damage.”

Note that I see no problem with short selling so long as it is not “naked” and where the seller has a genuinely held view on the financial prospects of a company. But the ability to affect market activity by issuing slanted news commentary from the market operator is surely dubious.

Bloggers and other “financial journalists” who comment on companies are often not regulated by the FCA, can operate behind anonymous front operations or from foreign jurisdictions that are not subject to UK libel laws. In any case UK libel laws are ineffective in tackling the abuses that can be propagated as the aforementioned article explains.

Such writers and their publishers actually have a financial motive sometimes to generate the most debate by making the most outrageous claims because this will generate more hits and links to their web site. That helps to sell advertising on the site, to attract more visitors, which generates more publicity and so the circle continues.

Regrettably the law is only slowly catching up with the problems created by social media. A story put on social media can get around the world several times in a few hours, while any legal action can take months.

These problems created by “fake news”, or simply somewhat inaccurate news, might be helped if there was some way to get the news corrected. But try asking Google to remove a false story or outrageous claim. They are unlikely to do so. They even resisted strongly the EU demand to support the “right to be forgotten” about the past history of individuals (even when palpably false) and even as implemented it is of limited use.

Now the defenders of this new world argue that it is necessary to avoid regulation so as to preserve free speech. But we have surely reached the point where fuller consideration of these issues needs to be undertaken. At present, the risk of abusive attacks is likely to inhibit people getting involved in public life so free speech and democracy will be undermined rather than protected.

These are undoubtedly complex issues, difficult to cover in a short article, let alone suggest some solutions. But what do readers think, without getting into a debate on the merits of short selling?

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

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

How Many Stocks?

There was an interesting article in this week’s Investors Chronicle by John Rosier which discussed the number of holdings he had in his portfolio. He had attended a presentation by a well-known private investor who had 25% of his portfolio in one stock. John questioned whether he held too many stocks in his own portfolio (32 according to his portfolio list). He mused that Neil Woodford held 135 stocks in his UK Equity Income Fund but the largest 10 positions made up 42% by value. Mark Slater who runs the MFM Slater Growth Fund also had 42% in his top 10 but Nick Train in his Finsbury Growth & Income Trust has 75% in his top 10.

Now this caused me to examine my own portfolio. I actually have 95 equity holdings, and at this point in time, no bonds or other fixed interest stocks. The figures for my portfolio are:

37% in the top 10.

60% in the top 20.

85% in the top 50.

So it’s moderately concentrated and only slightly less concentrated than those mentioned above apart from Nick Train’s. As John Rosier said in his article, the concentration of the portfolio in the largest holdings is more important than the total number of holdings.

One interesting aspect is that this concentration is not just from design. It has arisen because I tend to buy more of the winners and sell the losers. Indeed, it would have become even more concentrated but I have a rule that I do not like to have any holding go over 5% of the total. That limit is even lower for smaller cap stocks because they are obviously more risky and my innate conservatism leads me to prefer to avoid large shocks to my overall wealth.

If I was younger, and not solely depending on my investments to finance my living standard then I might be able to take a more aggressive stance. Indeed, at my age (71), most financial advisors would say I should have well over 50% in fixed interest but I have taken a different view as to what is safe and what is not. More diversification, particularly across many small cap stocks with many on good dividend yields backed up by cash (ignored in the above calculations), gives me some protection. In addition with some smaller AIM stocks, it can be very difficult to buy or sell large blocks of shares so getting out when you want to can be very difficult if you have a big stake. So investors who hold AIM shares are probably sensible to have more shares in their portfolios than those who concentrate on FTSE shares alone.

Perhaps the issue with my portfolio is that there are 45 stocks I hold that make up only 15% of the overall portfolio value. Why bother with them? Some of these are ones where I am building up a holding from an initial low level, and some are simply small cap speculations where I am still learning about them. A few are VCTs that I bought years ago and find it difficult to dispose of without incurring capital gains tax. Others are holdings not in my ISA and SIPP accounts where disposing of them altogether would crystalise a capital gains tax liability when I am already over the annual allowance. There are a few “duds” where the holding shrank to a very small size as I gradually sold it down as a result of following the share price trend.

The key to managing the 95 holdings is to use some automated software tools to track one’s portfolio and the individual holdings to ensure you don’t miss any share price break-outs (up or down) or any news – I use several such products and services.

Having pondered this question of “how many stocks”, I am not uncomfortable with the current structure of my portfolio but it’s probably worth doing this exercise regularly and clearing out some of the smaller holdings once per year.

Another aspect to consider is of course how diverse the holdings are in terms of them operating in different market segments – to avoid the problem of them all moving together. It is very obvious from studying the reader portfolios regularly published by Investors Chronicle that many private investors have too many holdings – typically multiple funds that are likely to move in step.

I hope this article has prompted readers to look at their own portfolios and the concentration they have in them.

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

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