My memory goes well before that!
Printable View
" slowly they trying to bring SP closer to NAV"..
Hell well that's really working isn't it..😮.
They can't do a damn thing to influence the market price by buying back piddling amounts of shares.
If they don't run out of cash at some point.
I expect there's some head share sales behind the scenes funding the money go-round.
But the broader issue is how many highly paid Fisher Funds investment analysts does it take to just keep buying more MFT/FPH/IFT plus a couple more?. This strategy warrants a fee scale closer to index funds, not expensive FM fees.
I'm glad the warrant issue failed because the fund manager is not spreading the risk much, all we get is more of the favourite top five or so. This works until something goes bung. And it has. Not too long ago ATM was the golden goose with a massive holding. Then boom up it went in smoke. I'd like the Board - that's the Board who are funded by US holders and not Fishers, to cease the rollover/rollover/rollover relationship with Fishers and seriously look elsewhere for a new FM. Milford have an excellent reputation?. Let's ask for the executive summary of the 'five year reviews' and see how much effort was really made to look around the market for alternatives. Seriously...I mean did the Board really look?
Edit: infact I will even go further and suggest Kingfish internalize it's fund management (like most of the listed property players have), after all how hard can it be to keep buying the same stocks?. No expensive external costs and the same skill set on performance based salaries rather than $uperstar stock picker rates.
Think about it ...yes you Board.
Disc. Big holder (and occasional seller when it makes sense because they only get cheaper if you save your divy cash and wait long enough...). It's just another stock...
Yes I do know that😉
And just by the by I don't personally think that Board members reading social media posts is necessarily indicative of a finger on the pulse of the business. It perhaps tells me something else. Why not a shareholder survey ...if that were the reasons.
Do the Board of MFT/IFT/FPH operate in this way?...maybe they might but actually I reckon they're too busy doing other things.
I've been a holder in KFL and it's listed siblings for most of their lives (two since IPO).
I said repeatedly in the past that you can't treat these like listed funds. You'll end up eating your own savings if you're too passive. They are shares...treat them as you would any other listed security. And put yourself in charge. Don't sit in the back seat asking are we there yet...
You'll need to be in the pilot's seat accelerating (and braking) when necessary to avoid potholes on the road.
Suppose part of Kingfish managers return is tied to TSR, that being Total Shareholder Return
Share buybacks would be included in that calc ….TSR = dividends + share buy backs + capital gain/loss
Share buybacks seem a good lurk then.
Winner mate ....No fund manager howsoever great can manufacture returns if concerned market doesnt perform ...One cant suddenly start complaining about KFL returns while watching US markets performance ...KFL is mandated to be invested in " GOOD QUALITY " liquid and long term growing companies listed on NZX ...they do their job pretty well within these limitations which is validated by their last 20 years performance or outperformance ...if someone has problem with their stock selection etc then he can always exit ...KFL has a purpose for regular income yearners and safe growth seekers while staying on NZX ...one can always have mix of NZ assets and US ...US is where more growth companies are ...but still its called Magnificent 7 these days ...like Top 5 of KFL ...nothing wrong in having concentrated portfolios ...Buffet has 47% in Apple ...no complains but only accolades and followers like SR !!!