was for carmel
Printable View
The D/Y on Marlin and Baramundi look Fab, how do they do it?. OK found it They're committed to paying 2% quarterly and if necessary will liquidate part of its capital base and return it to shareholders tax free. So how does the discount NTA to S/P remain if theyre doing that?
Thanks for wondering all day about me:). Amazingly its never been mentioned on this thread.Def seductive div alright.
Last NTA update - 82.81 cps on 14 Sep.
Sp was 69 cents = 17% discount.
Market is not dumb and is telling you something profound.
The decent thing to do is wind this fund up and return the full 82.81 cents back to unit holders but she will not do that and there is nothing to compel her to do that.
Just a lot of small time retail investors without clout to force her to perform or to return the funds.
What Carmel Fisher is doing is cleverly dragging the life-span of this miserable lousy performing fund out - so that she can maximized her fees year on year until she has bled the last cent out of it into her Gucci Italian silk-lined pockets as she tucks into the caviar and cries softly into her champagne, sitting on the balcony of the 6 star hotel overlooking the Eiffel Tower.
Oh, the Bentley is waiting downstairs?
Throw a few crumbs to the pathetic peasants and they should consider themselves lucky they are even getting the crumbs. Must remember to wave to them.
From my data there are very few LIC's worldwide trading above NTA
For Australia http://www.asx.com.au/documents/prod...ugust_2012.pdf
It seems to be the same in Britain. The only example I know from those I follow
is Polar Technology Trust. Perhaps some of the opinions are too harsh?
So right OldRider.
MFF is an example of a properly run alternative. listed at a similat time as Marlin, battered by the
financial crisis but had a consistant strategy of buying quality at bargan prices.
The gap to NTA has now narrowed as their quality is starting to be recognised.
I know the Fisher funds are buying much smaller stocks but some of their purchases
and following sales have been bizarre to say the least, there at times appeared to be
no consistant strategy , except buy high , sell low
MFF are an interesting comparison (I currently hold both). They are yet to return to $1 listing price (currently 92.5cps) and are only just about to pay their first dividend (1cps). Yet, based on the growth in FUM for manager (almost 50% pa in past couple of years), MFG, one would have presumed their management were one of the best in the game.
MLN share price is now considerably lower at 70cps, but, by my calculations, they have paid out a total of 21.96cps in dividends. Even without allowing for these being re-invested (and with no consideration of tax or forex comparisons), it appears that MLN and MFG have produced relatively similar returns since launch at "share price+dividends" level... yet at NTA level, MLN is carrying 13.25cps discount versus MFF's 3.5cps.
As I read it, despite current investor criticisms of Fisher Funds as managers and investor praise for Magellan, Fisher may have actually produced the better return for their investors over time in this particular comparison.
I wondered what the new Fund Mangers performance had been like, the CV reads well but when i looked at his performance it looked to be less than impressive.
The stocks selected by MFF have been far superior to Marlins , and have perfrmed much better.
The reason MFF are now only returning to their starting point is because of the australian dollar . They have consistantly
maintained the aussie dollar is overvalued , and therefore didnt hedge it. They lost out due to that , although any fall off
in the aussie dollar could see their shares accumulate in value fairly quickly , as they have done recently
I have done a little research this morning, and it supports the view expressed
in Lizards post
The shareprice of MFF has increased rather more than has its NTA, MLN has decreased the most
compared to its NTA, in fact quite similarly to PMC
TGG has almost kept a similar ratio.
For us oldies the regular dividend payment, even if paid from capital, is helpful
for living expenses
Of course, perception is largely dependent on when you bought any of these investments. Somebody who paid 55c per share is likely to have a far more positive view than someone who bought at the IPO price of 1.00
Things are heating up here in advance of the AGM! https://www.nzx.com/companies/MLN/announcements/228564
MLN - Non-binding proposed resolution
5:22pm, 17 Oct 2012 | MEETING
17 October 2012
Dear Shareholder
Resolution proposed by Elevation Capital Management Limited for consideration at the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting
Introduction
Marlin has received a proposal dated 15 October 2012 from Elevation Capital Management Limited (Elevation Capital). The proposal is that a resolution be put to shareholders at the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting (to be held on 1 November 2012) that the Board terminates the current management agreement with Fisher Funds, and returns all capital to shareholders.
Interesting that Marlin has just signed for 5 years with Fisher Funds......I wonder when Marlin first got approached by Elevation?
Looking at the books....
seams thay are good shape on the balance sheet.
The markets are struggling back life with EQ 4ever....
This coy can re-adjust quite quickly and it ain't broken
by any means.
They are a bloody good divvy stock and no reason why
good divvy's wont continue.
Elevation are just being a pain and of course, they are competitors.
BB
Look at Carmel Fisher's track record with all her offerings over the years - lousy performances all round with KFL, BRM and Marlin.
Great marketing, wining and dining the reporters, financial advisors and brokers like Craigs who eagerly pushed their clients into the funds for the 1.5% brokerage she was giving.
years later - nothing but millions upon millions of management fees extracted for ???? and bugger all for investors.
Correct me if I am wrong and I will stand corrected!
And I will front up to Fisher Fund and apologize profusely.
Balance you have lost all your objectivity on these funds...In your own mind I understand you believe you have been screwed by them. Why? Because obviously the SP has dropped below what you originally paid. What about all the dividends you would have received over the time you owned them. Many investors are very happy with these funds and understand that management fees are part and parcel of running funds. You are stuck in a bad place here in my opinion..this constant criticism is based on the facts as you see them and not taking into account the many positives that many investors feel. Your'e not wrong just suffering from tunnel vision. But hey who hasnt been there.
Thks Sparky..
The not nice things I refer too, is not about the personel, more about the Coy in general.
There is a name there that I have heard before though !!!
BB
Speak for yourself and your tunnel vision.
A simple request for you enlighten us as to Fisher Funds performance track record is met by comments not supported by facts.
The facts are that Fisher Funds have not performed. The dividends do not cover the capital losses suffered by unitholders but Fisher Funds continue to get millions upon millions of management fees (irrespective).
For the directors (independent? Good joke that!) to agree to another 5 years is totally unjustifiable.
Oh Ok I get it now...its only a fact if you say it ...that makes perfect sense...not... They have been performing fine for me 9% DIVIDEND YIELD...is that enough of a fact for you? A capital loss is only achieved if you buy and sell lower than you buy. I gather you bought high ok we have all done that but why not sit on it and at least receive dividends instead of selling at a loss. That would have been your decision and not really anything to do with the fund. Sometimes things recover even if it takes years. Its a personal investment philosophy that drives these things. Might I suggest that you clarify your statement as follows."The Fisher Funds have not performed for me" then I might stop questioning your objectivity.
But it is not real yield it is return of capital. They have to sell shares in the companies they hold in order to pay the so called dividend. At the same time they take a number of million in management fees. Sorry readers but the return of capital dressed up as a dividend is just a pig with lipstick.
You dont really believe in a year when Fook Yuu drops 80% (so far) that they actually had a yielding return.
To quote the Marlin May update:
'Dividend payments made in March, June, September and December. To meet the payments, Marlin Global will firstly utilise income from its investments and realised capital gains. If these are insufficient to cover the targeted payout Marlin Global may pay from its capital base'
It is clearly opportunism but it they can realise a 25% gain by closing the fund, then why wouldn't you.
guys if you compare performance to benchmark you can see the fund has outperformed (albeit modestly) - the fact that the discount to NAV has increased should not be considered when judging the performance. A bit of balance is appropriate here.
If you have lost money its because you allocated assets to global small cap equity as an asset class - and that asset class has performed poorly. Don't blame the fund manager!
because there may be investors who still want to be invested in the asset class and are supportive. To fisher's credit the implementation of a capital return through increased dividend payments which is designed to increase investor interest and narrow the gap to NAV is an example of good governance.
My personal opinion is LIC's are a bit of a flawed structure and should'nt be allowed but nonetheless I don't see criticisim leveled as balanced or fair.
And no im not invested nor am I any particular fan of carmel and co.
Good governance would be instituting regular or at least one-off off-market tender buy-back at NAV (less 1 to 2% costs) to provide unit holders the opportunity to exit near NAV or to simply convert to an open-ended fund as proposed by Gary North way back when. However, I suspect either of those options has the potential to significantly reduce fees received by Fisher Funds so will probably never see the light of day (at least without some solid activism by shareholders).
The outperformance quoted is of the NAV, not of the Shareprice. It would be great if investors could get out at NAV, but they currently can not. As for the so called dividend, it is partly a capital return, so the actual yield is NOT what it seems. To call a capital return (some of your invested money) a dividend is simply PR speak, it is NOT yield as most would think of it.
Thats a mighty fine looking pig and a particularly fetching shade of lipstick however. Management fees are normal and expected by reasonable balanced individuals. If people think the fees are too high then they have a democratic right to do something about it...either canvass for voter support or exit the fund. If the fees were too high in relation to the results there would be a mass exodus...so I guess that answers that question. Whether you call it a yield or return of capital is somewhat immaterial since the cash doesnt care what you call it. ALso the policy states as you point out that the payout MAY be supported by a sell down of shares but they are constantly rebalancing their portfolio anyway. No fund will be without some duds. Bottom line is how much did you buy in for....what is the ongoing dividend yield....and how much can you exit for... Taking all these things into consideration..its a winner...for me.
Another well trained investor of the Carmel Fisher school of investing.
You guys are trained so well that you actually think lousy performances are acceptable!
And return of capital as dividends!!!!
So you give someone $1. She badly manages the money and it's down so she says I will give some of your money back every quarter. Meanwhile, she still charges you 3%+ pa to manage and administer your money!
If a bank does that, I can imagine the hue and cry.
But dress up a pig with lipsticks and there are some who actually believe it's pretty!
Clap clap!
Maybe but it is also opportunism by Fisher Funds and Carmel when they say vote against this, after all Carmel is charging approx $2m a year to run this little fund so we know where her interests are. Who do you back, the guy who want to offer you a 15+% return or the girl who wants to charge you fees no matter if the value of your investment goes up or down?
Maybe but when Marlin was first listed it did not talk in the prospectus about dividends being paid out from the capital invested. That was a change they made so that they could try and close the discount to NAV (was nearly 30%) so for the 3,000 investors in MArlin who purchased on floating, they have seen this so called quality investment fall to a big discount to the value of the assets and then they get paid back the money they invested dressed up as a dividend.
In years gone past it was Sir Ron and the likes that looked at companies that were trading at a discount to the value of the assets, launched a takeover and made the money for themselves. At least in this case Elevation Capital is looking to allow all shareholders to benefit, not just its own.
Are you serious, so you think its OK to give someone money and then they return it to you as a dividend (which therefore reduces your capital) and think its a good deal. What are you drinking, because the coolaid must be strong.
For 3/4 of the investors in Marlin that is 3,000 investors they have not been able to buy in at the discount and have only seen there investment drop. If you are so keen on the dividend why not vote for the return @ NAV and invest in a company that pays dividends from EARNINGS, at least that way when you sell you still have a chance that your capital is there.
As a shareholder in MLN I will vote against Elevation's proposal. I am with Birmanboy on this one. I have done very well out of MLN as I bought in after the discount established itself.
Here Here.... 777
I like this one coz they allow me exposure to O/Sea's equities without going through all the hoop's.
(Sorry Hoop, did'nt mean you... regards to Mrs Hoop)
Anna Naum.... You make some good points, but had the big bang in 2008 not happened, would we be having this discussion. ?
World equities are slowly picking up. So now is the best time to be re-ajusting.
IMO, Marlin has a good future.
Balance old son..... are you secretly in love with this Fisher Lady... ???. What you got invested there...? :cool:
Only fair and proper way to offer such a product is via the open ended funds so that investors can exit at NAB if they want to exit.
But you will not get the likes of Carmel Fisher do that as her performance track record is such that most of the investors in KFL, BRM and MLN would have taken their money out a while ago and put it with other managers who actually perform!
We cannot have that , can we? Afterall, her managers, independent directors and she have put in a lot of thought about how to milk management fees for as long as they can without the pesky investors holding them to account and wanting their money out.
Not up with play here Bal but are you saying they sell things to pay this divie? Doesn't this then reduce the amount of assets in the fund? So the NAV reduces ......yes? And then if the discount to the NAV remains constant then the share price will fall as well?
So cash in the hand but on the other hand the paper value of my MLN shares have gone down as well. .....or am really stupid and this is not what happens
One thing I do get is that the discount to NAV is often what the market sees as the cost of future management fees ...think of it as OK you give somebody a $100 to look after for a long time but you are going to pay him $X a year to look after it and protect it ...so in reality when you get your $100 back you spent quite a lot of money in having it kept safe ....so it not really worth $100 today is it
In MLN case the discount to NPV is about $15 million .......that's what the market sees as how much the manager is taking out in fees in the future. The market is not inefficient or stupid or just doesn't get it ....the market is only valuing something for what it is really worth, taking into account what it knows ....ESP about management fees
Exactly what is happening (capital paid out to look like dividends) BUT we have individuals here actually believing that Marlin is a great dividend stock!
So here's the rub :
1. Put in $1.00, sp falls to 96 cents immediately as costs etc eat up 4%.
2. Bad performance so NAB goes down to 85 cents.
Market discounts for bad performance so sp falls to 75 cents.
3. Pay out 6 cents from capital so NAB falls to 79cents.
Sp falls to 70 cents.
Take out 2 cents management fees, NAB = 77 cents.
4. Genius comes along and go - wow, 7 cents dividend on sp 70 cents - it's 10% yield!
5. Pay out another 7 cents next year so NAB falls to 70 cents. After management fees, NAB falls to 68 cents.
6. Super Genius comes along and says, wow dividend yield of over 10%.
Buy! Buy!
Meanwhile, those who put in $1.00 originally are wondering whether to get out or not but if they try to, they are doing so at a discount to NAB.
Meanwhile, the manager(s) are crying into their champagne - fearful that Elevation may just get the right support and wind the fee-generating loss making fund up.
100% correct
I know i like to talk up MFF in comparison , mainly becaue they started around the same time .
They are handling things much better.
Just announced their first dividend , of 1cent per share (apx 1%) The SP has just about fully recovered from the GFC and they are looking in good shape. The portfolio companies are paying MFF more in dividends than MFF are paying the shareholders , which is as it should be. There is enough left for them to grow.
Marlin on the other hand appears to be eating itself. Has anyone worked out how many years it would take for the SP to reach zero?
Pity one can't buy shares in Carmel's management company
A bit here and a bit there all adds up eh ..... I see the management collected $13m odd in fees lady year
Good on her .....making a few bob helping hundreds of thousands of nzer's getting richer ....sems win win .....well sort of
The strange thing about Marlin is that it is supposed to be investing in small growth companies, many of which dont pay dividends, why then is Marlin trying to act like a high yielding dividend stock??
Winner- one comment re the discount reflecting future management fees.
If investors thought the management would deliver returns above market, the discount should be a premium.
Not an apples to apples comparison but I believe IFT trades above its NAV.
Reading the full releases over the weekend it looks like Elevation may have approached Marlin prior to the board of Marlin entering into a new agreement with Fisher Funds to manage Marlin. If so one has to question why the board of Marlin entered into a new contract when they knew a proposal to wind up Marlin was going to be made.
If this is correct it reflects very poor board governance by the independent directors of Marlin.
Chalkie's take on Marlin and the issue of the independence of the independent directors :
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...wounded-Marlin
Excerpt : "Swasbrook was aware the contract was up for renewal and contacted Marlin independent director Mark Todd on September 13 to talk about his proposal. Todd resigned three days later. His resignation left just three directors on Marlin's board - Carmel Fisher, Alistair Ryan and Carol Campbell. The latter two are classified as independent.The same three directors comprise the boards of the other two Fisher-managed investment trusts - Kingfish and Barramundi. With Ryan and Campbell collecting directors' fees from three Fisher funds, are they really independent? Had Marlin been a British company, the answer would be no. In 2003, Britain's financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority, considered the issue of investment trust board independence."
Now, would Alistair and Carol be prepared to forgo between $90,000 to $150,000 a year in fees?
Silly question?
Indeed.
I wonder if Elevation will make an issue out of Alistair Ryan's being seen by some in the market as a loyal servant of Evan Davies, ex-CEO of Sky City. As CFO, Evan Davies and Alistair Ryan embarked on a series of ill-conceived wealth destructive debt funded acquisitions - Adelaide Casino, Canbet, Entertainment Centre, Queenstown etc while allowing the cash cow Auckland casino to run down to such a extent that dealers had to wear flea collars to keep away the fleas infecting the main casino floors!
Interesting article. It's swayed me.
[QUOTE=CJ;383905]I predict Fisher Fund will reach a settlement with Elevation.
Otherwise, Fisher's track record of '"buying some and keep buying to get short term exceptional performances and attracting more funds under management with the ultimate end result of 'buying high and selling low'" will come under scrutiny.
Examples? Rakon, Pumpkin Patch, TUA but to name 3! Then, there's all that lovely stocks in ASX bought with same strategy under Barramundi.
I still remember the infamous Prudential Emerging Companies' Trust of 1992 to 1994.
Swayed me in as much as I was happy to let Malin carry on and prove itself but I hadn't followed the appointment of directors as close as I should.
Remembering the vote is non-binding, I don't believe elevation will manage a return of capital but it should cause an inward look from the directors of Fischer.
I also don't think they will want the bad press.
Each their own CJ. I'm not selling yet.
I have been invested in Templeton Emerging Markets on the NZX (TEM) for 6 years or so and they ran an off-market tender a couple of years ago that benefited both the people wishing to exit at a smaller discount and ongoing holders by increasing NAV. I think the tendered discount was about 4%.
It is a very good option in my opinion to narrow discounts to NAV. Though in hindsight the fact that so many shareholders took up the offer was a clear signal to get out of emerging market shares for a while!
For those interested TEM is very well run by its English based board with an excellent manager and high long term returns.
So Elevation has release a presentation on this on their website:
http://www.elevationcapital.co.nz/in...-presentations
.... but whatever that regular dividend is bloody good
If you look at the Elevation presentation on page 8 they show VERY clearly that it is not a dividend at all, rather a capital return that reduces the investment that remains, this policy taken to its natural conclusion results in no money left to invest or to pay a dividend.
W69 is being ironical, me thinkth.
Coming to a stage whereby the independent directors better have a very very very good case for renewing the contract of Fisher, bearing in mind that they will be influenced by the fact that they are getting $90,000 to $150,000 in directors' fees from being INDEPENDENT directors of all 3 Fisher listed funds.
But as W69 would state, they are people of complete and utter integrity with nothing but unitholders' interests in mind, are individuals with undoubted capabilities who carefully evaluated how Fisher has been managing the fund, presenting the lousy performances to unitholders so they understand how badly Fisher management has been and generally, are people of utmost selflessness. They are, ain't they? Money is not everything, right?
[QUOTE=Balance;384039]W69 is being ironical, me thinkth.
Gotcha, I was thinking they/he/she usually is on to it but best I point out the potential flaw in the argument
Looking forward to the Marlin meeting next week. Elevation has given Caramel a nice amount of time to try and come back with an independent view for the 'independent' directors to claim as the reasons for such incompetence.
It seems Random_Walker does most of his walking around the Elevation office and his posts on the NZX forum are not so random.
It's pretty obvious RW is Chris Swasbrook.
RW only posts when Elevation is actively promoting themselves, their causes and/or seeking support.
Salvus - Jul 2011 - posting when Elevation is a substantial shareholder and is agitating
Seeka/Satara - Jul to Nov 2011 - posting when Elevation is a substantial shareholder of Satara and Chris Swasbrook is a director
Kirkaldies - Sep 2011 - posting when Elevation is a shareholder and agitating
PGC - Oct 2011 - posting when Elevation is agitating
And now Marlin…
And Kirkaldies again... Then Deleted... Go Figure...
Come on Chris, show yourself.
Where is the transparency and good governance that you speak of?
When does anonymous activism and promotion through this forum become market manipulation?
He will be making low ball offers soon.
Wrong! I have also posted on Energy Mad, Rubicon, PGC, etc none of which I believe Elevation have positions in... Though I do own some of the same value stocks and like to follow them and their activist plays. However everything they do is released on their website publicly with letters, presentations, etc so anyone can follow it.
Not to worry, RW.
This is typical of the brigade that attempts to shut down posters and postings they do not like because of their own agendas. Tells more about them than you.
I had posters trying to shut me down with Pike River Coal when I criticized the management of the mine and company, even to the extent of them writing private messages and complaining to admin. Then, the mine blew up and only then, I think they knew what a grievous disservice they had done to the dead miners and their families. Instead of being objective and joining in the criticism of how incompetent the mine managers were, they were intent on supporting the incompetency and shutting down anyone who dared to take them on. Very telling of what sort of individuals those posters were/are.
Keep up the good work and let's keep posting and exchanging views and ideas.
Random_Walker, If you say so...
SparkyTheClown, Balance, Anna_Naum
I have been a member of this community for over four years. I don’t believe posting is a membership requirement.
As for the name... well I just wanted to fit in.
Shareholder Association say they have been studying this closely and taking legal advice. Very concerned about conflicting information with regards to governance issues. Asking members for "undirected proxies" until they have a better informed position !
Unlikely. Too many journos have fallen under the spell of Fisher Fund. One female journo went as far as to say that Fisher's success is a source of aggro for an industry dominated by males - and then, proceeded to write about the wonderful performances of Fisher Funds!
Fat chance of making good returns analysing companies beyond Australasia when Fisher Fund cannot even properly analyse companies in Australia and NZ!
Can you imagine the overseas companies opening up to Marlin when it is a little minnow compared to the multi-billion dollar funds out there with unlimited resources to source the best deals, IPOs and research?
And the new fund manager has a terrible performance record. Look at his funds performance as per Elevation presentation
http://bit.ly/TNW98J
Page 25.
I did not see Caramel using that bit of data!!
But one of their recent newsletters said it was hectic on their trip around Europe talking to companies ....no time to enjoy themselves?
I see the board has yet to answer the burning issue of why they entered into a new management contract when they knew someone was looking to propose to close the fund down......at best VERY poor form....at least pathetic management of the company by the independent directors.
Shareholders association are supporting the windup.
Questioning why independent directors didn't review management agreement an put it out to tender.
And seeking NZX rule change so they won't be considered independent.