Brexit Investment Strategies

Investors may have noticed that the pound is in free fall and heading towards US$1.20. That’s near the low after the initial Brexit vote. Pundits, not that they can be relied on for forex forecasts, suggest it could go lower now that we seem to be heading for a “no-deal” Brexit.

With the pound falling, and potential damage to the UK economy from a hard Brexit, investors should surely have been avoiding companies reliant on UK sales, or UK consumers, or those such as engineers and manufacturers that rely on just-in-time deliveries from Europe. The key has been to invest in those UK listed companies that make most of their sales overseas in areas other than the EU.

One such company that announced interim results today is 4Imprint (FOUR), a supplier of promotional merchandise. Most of its sales are in the USA and its accounts are in dollars. Revenue in dollar terms was up 16% at the half year and pre-tax profit up 22%. The share price rose 6.5% yesterday and more this morning but the former suggests the good news leaked out surely. With the added boost from currency movements, this is the kind of company in which to invest but there are many other companies with similar profiles. For example, many software companies have a very international spread of business, or specialist manufacturers such as Judges Scientific (JDG). Those are the kind of companies that have done well and are likely to continue to do so in my view if the US economy remains buoyant and the dollar exchange rate remains favourable.

The other alternative to investing in specific UK listed companies with large export revenues and profits is of course to invest directly in companies listed in the USA or other markets. But that can be tricky so the other option is to invest in funds such as investment trusts that have a global spread of investments with a big emphasis on the USA. Companies such as Alliance Trust (ATST), Scottish Mortgage (SMT) or Polar Capital Technology Trust (PCT) come to mind. Alliance Trust has a one-year share price total return of 11% according to the AIC and the share price discount is still about 5%. I received the Annual Report of PCT yesterday and it makes for interesting reading. Net asset total return up 24.7% last year and it again beat its benchmark index. The investment team there has been led by Ben Rogoff for many years and what he has to say about the technology sector is always worth reading. Apparently the new technology to watch is “software containerisation” which is compared to the containerisation of cargo shipments in its revolutionary impact.

Another interesting comment is from the Chairman complimenting Ben on having the skill of buying shares and holding those which go on to outperform, but also knowing when to sell at the right time which the Chairman suggests is not common in fund managers.

Another hedge against a hard Brexit is to invest in companies that own warehouses because a lot more stockpiling is already taking place as a protection around the Brexit date by importers, but also more will be required to hold buffer stocks for manufacturers in the future. Companies such as Segro (SGRO), Tritax Big Box (BBOX), and Urban Logistics (SHED) have been doing well for that reason. They have also been helped by the trend to internet shopping which requires more warehousing space and less retail space. These trends are likely to continue in my view and the retail sector is likely to remain difficult for those retailers reliant on physical shops. You can see that from the results from Next (NXT) this morning. Shop sales down while internet sales up with the overall outcome better than expected as on-line sales grew rapidly. Anyone who expects the high street or shopping malls to revive is surely to going to be disappointed in my view.

There are bound to be some problems for particular sectors if we have a hard Brexit. The plight of Welsh sheep farmers was well covered by the BBC as Boris Johnson visited Wales yesterday. Most of their production currently goes to Europe but they may face 40% tariffs in future. The Prime Minister has promised assistance to help them but they have been heavily reliant on subsidies in the past in any case. There will need to be some difficult decisions made about the viability of farming on marginal land in future.

The falling pound has other implications of course. It will help exporters but importers will face higher prices with the result that inflation may rise. However, there are few products from Europe that cannot be substituted by home grown or produced equivalents, or by lower cost products from the rest of the world. With import tariffs lowered on many imports the net effect may be very low in the long term. But it will take time for producers and consumers to adjust. Tim Martin of JD Wetherspoon is well advanced in that process so you can see just how easy it will be to adapt.

In summary, investors should be looking at their current portfolios and how they might be impacted by Brexit now, if they have not already done so. There will clearly be winners and losers from the break with Europe and investors should not rely on any last-minute deal with the EU even if Boris is expecting one. Any solution may only be a temporary fix and the policies suggested above of international diversification are surely wise regardless of the political outcome.

Note: the author holds some of the stocks mentioned.

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.

Removing Directors, Ventus VCTs, Rent Controls and HS2

Replacing the directors of companies by shareholders can be enormously difficult. Although I have been instrumental in the past in helping that process in several companies, it takes enormous effort and a lengthy timescale to achieve it. ShareSoc director Cliff Weight has published a very perceptive article on the problems of doing so at the Ventus VCTs.

Problems faced by shareholders who are unhappy with the directors of a company are a) communicating with all other shareholders now that many are in nominee accounts and the costly process of writing to shareholders on the register via post (and processing the register into usable format for mailing); b) the existing directors of a company using the resources of the company (i.e. shareholders funds) to campaign actively against any change including the use of expensive proxy advisors to contact shareholders via telephone; c) the role of IFAs who advise their clients or who manage their portfolios and who can influence the shareholder voting; and d) the inertia of institutional investors (or to quote someone from the FT today: about 60% of company investors are passive shareholders and ‘don’t care’).

In the case of the Ventus VCTs, some shareholders are unhappy with the management fees as no new investments are being made by the company and are unhappy with the actions of the directors. They have tabled requisitions for the Annual General Meetings at Ventus VCT and Ventus 2 VCT on the 8th August to remove all the directors and appoint new ones. Of particular concern is the current two-year termination notice on the management agreement which is now being proposed to extend further. It is never a good idea for investment trusts to have long termination periods in contracts with the manager.

You can read Cliff Weight’s blog article here: https://tinyurl.com/y2de9vaa . There is also an article covering this topic in this weeks Investor’s Chronicle under the title “Limits of Influence”. It’s well worth reading.

How to solve these problems? I suggest the following: a) a reform to put all shareholders (including beneficial owners) on the register of companies; b) put shareholders email addresses on the register so that communicating with them can be done at reasonable cost – it’s surely unreasonable in the modern age to only have postal addresses which adds to costs enormously; c) limit how much can be spent on proxy advisors to oppose shareholder requisitions; and d) exclude passive institutional investors who have no interest as owners from voting.

Rent Controls

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is intending to develop proposals for rent controls in London so as to “stabilise” or reduce property rents in London (or make them “more affordable” as he puts it). That’s despite the fact that he has no legal powers to do so and a Conservative government would likely block such proposals. But Jeremy Corbyn supports the idea. The Mayor clearly sees this as a vote winner for his re-election campaign next year as he claims 68% of Londoner’s support rent controls!

Some of my readers probably invest in buy-to-let properties so such proposals will worry them considerably. On the other hand, those who rent houses or flats in London are undoubtedly concerned about the cost of renting and the rapid rise in rents in London. Some are being forced out of London or have to move to smaller properties.

But rent controls never work and create all kinds of negative side-effects, or unintended consequences. When I moved to London in the 1960s, rent controls were in place and had been since 1945 in various forms (there is good coverage of the history of rent controls in London on Wikipedia). In the 1960s, unfurnished properties were almost impossible to find or were horribly expensive as landlords had withdrawn from the market. Rachmanism to force tenants out of rent controlled properties was also rife and what property there was available for rent on the market was often in very poor condition because landlords simply could not justify spending money on maintenance. We definitely do not want to return to the 1960s despite Jeremy Corbyn’s desire to put us there!

Rent controls are not the answer, as many studies of such schemes has shown. The Mayor needs to do more to tackle the housing problem in London by ensuring more home are built, encouraging movement of people out of London, and discouraging new immigration into the capital from elsewhere. But you can read the Mayor’s press release here if you wish to learn more about his plans: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/to-tackle-affordability-crisis

HS2 and Brexit

The latest report that HS2 may cost an extra £30bn, meaning it could cost as much as £85bn in total, surely makes it even less justifiable. Enabling a very few people to save a few minutes on the train journey time from London to Birmingham at that cost makes no sense, although there might be more justification for expanding capacity and speed on routes in the North of England. However, it would surely be much better to spend that kind of money on an improved road network where the benefits are much greater. The Alliance of British Drivers has just published an analysis of road expenditure versus taxation which includes a comparison of road versus rail expenditure. It’s well worth reading – see here: https://www.abd.org.uk/road-investment-and-road-user-taxation-the-truth/ .

Now the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) have recently suggested that a “no-deal” Brexit would blow a £30bn hole in the public finances. Even if you accept that is true, and many do not, there appears to be a simple solution therefore. Cancel HS2 just to be on the safe side.

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.

 

Tory Leadership Contest and Brexit

It’s Sunday morning and time to talk politics, which I have not done for some time. A satisfactory resolution of Brexit is of some relevance to the performance of many UK companies which is a key focus of my readers.

How did we get into the current mess? Weak leadership and a lack of consensus both among Government ministers and in Parliament. Our negotiating position with the EU was confusing with changes of policy and people leading the team changing whereas the EU Commission decided what they wanted and stuck to it. The EU insisted early on that any post exit trade relationship would not be part of the withdrawal negotiations which the UK meekly conceded. The Withdrawal Agreement looks like it was drafted by the EU as a result.

It was very interesting watching the Storyville TV documentary that followed Guy Verhofstadt, MEP and leader of the EU Parliament team during the Brexit negotiations. Consistently it seemed that Britain did not know what they wanted. It was also clear of course that in the EU elected Parliament members (MEPs) have little influence and the Commission and the Council dictate policy – a good example of how undemocratic an institution it is.

Where to from here? Firstly the Conservative party need to elect a new leader who will be appointed as Prime Minister. The bookies seem to be tipping Boris Johnson who is popular among Tory party members. He also managed to get elected twice as Mayor of London despite London being generally very left wing in outlook due to the number of immigrants now living there. For those readers who do not live in London, here’s a brief summary of his record there. He removed the Western extension of the Congestion Charge, a popular move, but retained it otherwise and proposed a ULEZ scheme for the central zone. On the Environment his steps were reasonable but he fell in love with cycling and cycle superhighways which has made traffic congestion much worse. His support for the Garden Bridge was a mistake but he otherwise did keep the TfL budget in some kind of order, unlike his successor, and public transport was improved. He did not make unwise promises to the electorate to ensure his election. His record on crime and policing was OK, and better than his successor, but housing in London remained a major issue mainly because of the policies of his predecessor (and since followed by his successor), to encourage immigration and more business development when the needed infrastructure and housing lagged behind.

As Foreign Minister Boris was prone to gaffs and he is certainly not appreciated by some. My wife’s latest comment on him was: “he just needs to grow up”. His chances of unifying the Tory party behind him seem low.

Another leading contender is Dominic Raab, but like all the others, he lacks a lot of public recognition. But he did give a very polished performance on the Andrew Marr show this morning. He was very definite about wanting Brexit to happen on the 29th October with no further delays, and would accept a “No Deal” Brexit if it is impossible to change the Withdrawal Agreement before then. That to my mind is the right approach to take and I do not see a No Deal Brexit as a disaster like some. The economy would soon recover from any temporary disruption and the money saved from our EU contributions would help a great deal.

Some are tipping Michael Gove but I just do not see him as a personality that could win a general election for the Tories. Sajid Javid might be a better bet, but none of the other declared runners looks a winner to me.

The ability to win a general election, and face down Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party, is quite essential because Jeremy Corbyn is still fence sitting in the hope of forcing a General Election. He is 70 today so must realise that his chance of winning power may be slipping away.

Any new prime minister needs to tackle the issue of the Irish border and the “backstop” in the withdrawal agreement. He needs to appoint a cabinet that will back his chosen approach and either conclude that with the DUP or call a general election. That needs to be done quickly if it is to take place before October 29th when we exit the EU unless something else is put into law.

Apart from the Irish backstop proposal in the Withdrawal Agreement, which tied the UK into a Customs Union potentially for ever, there were other aspects of it which were not favourable. If the EU sits on its hands and refuses to renegotiate it a No Deal exit might be best so we can go back to square one and settle on a new trading relationship with them.

Economically the EU needs a good trading deal with the UK just as much as the UK needs one with the EU, if not more so taking into account the balance of trade. But if you have weak, inconsistent or muddled leadership then the chance of the UK getting what it wants is low. To my mind, Dominic Raab might be a better bet to achieve that than Boris Johnson.

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.

LCF – Another Audit Failure & the latest on Brexit

I have not covered the events at London Capital & Finance (LCF) before although the national press has done so extensively. LCF sold “mini-bonds” to 11,500 people who invested £236 million in them and are likely to recover very little. These “bonds” were promoted as being “ISAs” in some cases when they were not, and that they were FCA regulated when in fact they were not – only the company was FCA “authorised” for certain activities but that did not include selling these bonds.

The company paid very generous commissions on the sale of the bonds, as much as 25%, and the money raised was invested in small companies with few assets and who are very unlikely to provide a return.

But it has now been disclosed in the Financial Times that based on the 2017 accounts of LCF it appears that the company was technically insolvent even then. However it received a clean audit report from auditors EY. Administrators Smith & Williamson report on a series of “highly suspicious transactions” linked to a number of individuals where money appears to have been diverted to them.

I have written repeatedly on the failures of the audit profession, and the lackadaisical approach of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to improve standards and enforce them. Reforms are in progress (see https://roliscon.blog/tag/arga/ ) but it cannot be too soon. In the meantime, as always, the underlying problem is the gullibility of the public and their lack of financial education. Anyone who had undertaken more than a cursory look at the background of LCF and its finances would have shied away rapidly. But certainly being able to claim FCA authorisation was misleading and that is an issue that needs resolving.

Brexit

It seems Prime Minister May could have another attempt at passing her preferred EU Withdrawal Agreement which got defeated for the third time yesterday. Not that MPs managed to get any majority for alternative solutions in previous indicative votes. I supported the Prime Minister’s solution as a reasonable compromise although it was some way from being a perfect Agreement. However, with no time remaining to renegotiate it, refusal of the EU to countenance changes, and the general desire of the public to see the matter closed with no more debate, it was the best option available. However it was clear from watching yesterday’s debate that there are many MPs, both remainers and brexit supporters who had fixed opinions on the subject and were not going to change them. Mrs May’s problems were compounded by the Northern Irish DUP contingent, the awkward squad one might call them, and by Jeremy Corbyn doing all the could to obtain a general election by opposing any compromise in the hope of winning power.

What would I do if I were Prime Minister now? Decisive action is required which could include I suggest the following options: a) Ensure we exit the EU with no deal a.s.a.p. so as to force both the remainers and brexiteers to face up to reality, and the EU likewise – a rapid agreement on a free trade deal might then be concluded or the wisdom of Mrs May’s compromise would be made plain; or b) call a General Election with a new Conservative party leader and with a manifesto that is pro-Brexit. That would force all Conservative MPs to support the manifesto or be de-selected, i.e. they either support the manifesto or quit. The Labour party and other parties would also need to clarify their position on Brexit in their manifestos thus thwarting any more bickering about where they stand. With a bit of luck the outcome would be a clear majority in Parliament for a Government not beholden to minorities.

The EU might permit an extension of Article 50 to allow time for a General Election – at least 2 months is probably required, although there is no certainty on that. Some EU bureaucrats still seem to think that if they are awkward enough the UK will decide Brexit is not worth pursuing after all, but that ignores the political split that will remain in the UK with the Conservative party still disunited.

Will Mrs May take any decisive steps such as the above? I doubt it.

There is one advantage arising from the Brexit debate. The pressure on Parliamentary time has meant that the massive increase in Probate Fees for larger estates has been delayed. They won’t now take effect from the 1st April as proposed. Now might be a good time to die if you are fed up with this world so as to avoid more Brexit debates and save on probate fees!

Rather than finish on that depressing note, let us welcome a sunny Spring day that will lift all spirits, and with the pound falling (which helps many UK companies) and the stock market rising, life is not so bleak as politicians would have us believe.

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.

Patisserie and Interserve Administrations, plus Brexit latest

Yesterday the administrators (KPMG) of Patisserie (CAKE) issued their initial report. It makes for grim reading. The hole in the accounts was much worse than previously thought with an overstatement of net assets of at least £94 million. That includes:

  • Intangible assets overstated by £18m;
  • Tangible assets overstated by £5m;
  • Cash position overstated by £54m;
  • Prepayments and debtors overstated by £7m;
  • Creditors understated by £10m.

The accounts were clearly a total fiction. It is uncertain whether there will even be sufficient assets to make a distribution to preferential and unsecured creditors. As expected ordinary shareholders (who are not creditors) will get nothing. You can obtain the KPMG report from here: http://www.insolvency-kpmg.co.uk/case+KPMG+PJ12394136.html

KPMG suggest there may be grounds for legal action against various parties including Patisserie auditors Grant Thornton by the administrator, but as Grant Thornton are the auditors of KPMG they are suggesting the appointment of another joint administrator to consider that matter.

Otherwise it looks a fairly straightforward administration with assets sold off to the highest bidders and reasonable costs incurred.

Another recent administration was that of Interserve (IRV). This was forced into a pre-pack administration after shareholders voted against a financial restructuring (effectively a debt for equity swap) which would have massively diluted their interest. But now they are likely to get nothing. Mark Bentley of ShareSoc has written an extensive report on events at the company, and the shareholder meeting here: https://tinyurl.com/yy7heunl . He’s not impressed. I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye, as there usually is with pre-pack administrations. They are usually exceedingly dubious in my experience. As I have said many times before, pre-pack administrations should be banned and other ways of preserving businesses as going concerns employed.

Brexit. You may have noticed that the stock market perked up on Friday. Was this because of some prospect of Mrs May getting her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament after all? Perhaps it was. The reasons are given below.

There were two major road blocks to getting enough MPs to support the deal. Firstly the Irish DUP who had voted against it. But they are apparently still considering whether they can. On Thursday Arlene Foster said “When you come to the end of the negotiation, that’s when you really start to see the whites of people’s eyes and you get down to the point where you can make a deal”. Perhaps more concessions or more money for Northern Ireland will lubricate their decision.

Secondly the European Research Group (ERG – Jacob Rees-Mogg et al) need to be swung over. Their major issue is whether the Agreement potentially locks in the UK to the Irish “Backstop” protocol for ever. Attorney-General Geoffrey Cox’s advice was that it might, if the EU acts in bad faith. I have said before this legal advice was most peculiar because nobody would enter into any agreement with anyone else if they thought the other would show bad faith. Other top lawyers disagree with Cox’s opinion. See this page of the Guido Fawkes web site for the full details: https://tinyurl.com/y4ak6q3c

Mr Cox just needs to have a slight change of heart when his first opinion must have been rushed. He has already said that the Vienna Convention on international treaties might provide an escape route so he is creeping in the right direction.

Mrs May will have another attempt at getting her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament, assuming speaker Bercow does not block it as repeat votes on the same resolutions are not supposed to be allowed in Parliament.

It was very amusing watching a debate at the European Parliament over Brexit issues including whether an extension of Article 50 should be permitted – the EU can block it even if the UK asks for it.  The EU MEPs seemed to have as many opinions as UK MPs on the issues. The hardliners such as Nigel Farage wish that it not be extended so that the UK exits on March 29th. Others are concerned that keeping the UK in will mean they have to participate in the EU elections in May with possibly even more EU sceptics elected.

It’s all good fun but it’s surely time to draw this matter to a close because the uncertainty over what might happen is damaging UK businesses. A short extension of Article 50 might be acceptable to allow final legislation to be put in place but a longer one makes no sense unless it’s back to the drawing board. But at least the proposal for another referendum (or “losers vote” as some call it) was voted down in Parliament. Extending the public debate is not what most of the public want and would surely just have wasted more time instead of forcing MPs to reach a consensus.

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.

Brexit – Now a Supportable Deal

Mrs May’s latest agreement with the EU is surely a satisfactory outcome – at least for everyone except those who wish the UK to depart with “no deal” or oppose Brexit altogether. She has agreed very much what I suggested at the end of January when I said “She is getting near a clear mandate from Parliament which will help in the battle with EU bureaucrats and politicians who are adamant they won’t renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement. But they will have to if they don’t want the UK to exit without one, which would threaten a lot of EU country exports. Come March 28th, it will be time for a face-saving compromise – no change to the Withdrawal Agreement – just the addition of a codicil providing alternatives to the Backstop.”

And it’s not even March 28th yet, but whether she will get this agreement through Parliament remains to be seen. Later today the vote will decide, but it may not be a final resolution.

Why does the latest “update” to the Withdrawal Agreement provide a satisfactory outcome in my view? Because many people wished to retain uninhibited trade with the EU – at least for a transition period. That did require adherence to some common standards. That is what the Withdrawal Agreement provides and which primarily covers a 2-year transition period. After that the relationship is subject to negotiation and mutual agreement. But there was an issue with the Irish “backstop” that might have prevented the UK from ever exiting the EU fully. That is what many people objected to and what caused MPs to previously vote it down.

The Withdrawal Agreement may not be perfect in all other regards but it is a reasonable compromise and should now be supported. At least that’s my view but I can see some folks disagreeing on this.

You can read the latest legal “codicil” to the Withdrawal Agreement here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/instrument.pdf

Postscript: It has been disclosed that Attorney-General Geoffrey Cox does not believe the aforementioned “codicil” as I called it ensures that Britain will not be trapped in the Irish Backstop. He has said so in a 3-page letter to Mrs May – see https://tinyurl.com/y58jzzev . In summary he suggests that the “clarifications and amplified obligations provide a substantive and binding reinforcement of the legal rights available to the United Kingdom in the event that the EU were to fail in its duties of good faith and best endeavours” but he ends by saying that legal risks remain, particularly if the EU shows bad faith.

This seems excessively negative if you read it carefully. If bad faith is shown by either party to an agreement, then it fails. One or other party simply walks away. But Mr Cox’s comments will certainly not help the Prime Minister.

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.

Luxembourg Regulators Inept?

There were a couple of interesting articles on Luxembourg financial regulation in Mondays FTfm publication. The first was on the allegation by victims of the Madoff fraud that the regulator was “inept” because UBS were not being forced to compensate investors in the $1.4 billion Luxalpha fund that fed money to Madoff. UBS were the funds investment manager and custodian and should therefore have paid compensation under the regulator’s rules. But they are declining to enforce their own rules it is claimed. There also seem to be difficulties in investors pursuing legal claims in Luxembourg over this “due to bureaucratic hurdles”.

I have past experience of dealing with the Luxembourg regulator (the CSSF) over the actions of Paypal some years back. Paypal in Europe (and the UK) was and still is regulated by the CSSF. They proved to be totally useless in dealing with my complaint. I came to the conclusion that Paypal chose that regulatory venue for good reason.

I would be very wary of investing in any business that was registered or regulated in Luxembourg. The UK regulator might be quite inept at times, but at least they try to some extent to deal with complaints. The Luxembourg regulator seems to be asleep at the wheel or to simply not have the resources to provide the required service.

Surprisingly the second article in FTfm was how funds are moving to Luxembourg and Ireland spurred by Brexit so as to give them access to EU markets. This is being done by the use of “supermancos” (super management companies) that provide administration services for multiple fund providers and effectively it seems act as a “front” with the appropriate regulatory licences. The EU has laid down some rules that require them to have some “substance” but all that means apparently is that they need to have up to seven staff rather than just one or two. Does that inspire confidence? Not in me.

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.