|New Star Investment Trust
||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Equity Investment Instruments
New Star Investment Trust Share Discussion Threads
Showing 151 to 172 of 175 messages
|The documents should all be on the Companies House web-site I suspect.|
|Many thanks Topvest and erstwhile 2; I may attempt to claim some money from the liquidators for my few shares held on a platform....|
|On TOPS Estates and its investment trust, the liquidator sued the estate of the former CEO who had sadly passed away. The settlement was paid out last year. Not a full refund of the tax loss, but quite a chunky settlement nonetheless.|
|The close company rules are less onerous for a quoted company. From the Corporation Tax Act:
446 Particular types of quoted company
(1)A company is not to be treated as a close company at a particular time if—
(a)shares in the company carrying at least 35% of the voting power in the company have been allotted unconditionally to, or acquired unconditionally by, and are at that time beneficially held by, the public, and
(b)any such shares have within the preceding 12 months been the subject of dealings on a recognised stock exchange, and the shares have within those 12 months been listed on such an exchange.
(2)But subsection (1) does not apply to a company at any time when the total percentage of the voting power in the company possessed by all of the company's principal members exceeds 85%.
(3)For the purposes of this section, a person is a principal member of a company if the person possesses a percentage of the voting power in the company of more than 5% (but see subsection (4)).
(4)If there are more than 5 persons within subsection (3), a person is a principal member of the company only if—
(a)the person is one of the 5 persons who possess the greatest percentages, or
(b)in a case where there are no such 5 persons because two or more persons possess equal percentages of the voting power in the company, the person is one of the 6 or more persons (including those two or more who possess equal percentages) who possess the greatest percentages.
(5)In determining for the purposes of this section the voting power which a person possesses, there is to be attributed to the person any voting power which would be attributed to the person if section 451(3) to (6) applied for the purposes of this section.
(6)In this section “shares”—
(a)include stock, but
(b)do not include shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend, whether with or without a further right to participate in profits.|
I think that is the link to the final TOPS realisations.....if you do it wrong, you lose 30% of your assets in corporation tax and liquidators and legal fees. I don't think there was the ability to reclaim the tax but someone may correct me.|
|I never got any money back from the TOPS fiasco! how does one claim it?|
|Top 5 own 75.62% as per the 2016 Annual Report. I can't quite remember the precise rules, but it reminds me about Trust of Property Shares which lost its investment trust status just ahead of liquidation. Took 10 years to get our money back on the tax forfeited. No doubt they monitor the rules very closely here.|
|Which would more reasonably explain the lack of buyback, since it would reduce the shares in issue.|
|don't quote me but as long as 25% are held with holders with a non disclosable stake it remains a IT. it must be up against this limit.|
|It may be run as a family trust, but the directors declare it to be an Investment Trust (IT) - and get capital gains tax exception.
For a definition of an IT, see:
1. An Investment Trust must not be a close company (CTM60060).
2. A close company is one where:
More than half the assets of which would be distributed to five or fewer participators, or to participators who are directors, in the event of the winding up of the company - see CTM60320.
The board better wake up, before HMRC come calling! Plus Ernst & Young as auditors?
(I may cross post this on the citrus site to see if anyone there knows how NSI can keep claiming to be an IT)|
|It is a family trust. It won't be sold down. The fees are immaterial at each level to Duffield.
It makes sense for him to perpetuate the discount as the only exit is one that is on Duffield's terms, and the bigger the discount, the better the economics for him or his successor family when a resolution is determined or required.
It's pretty simple. If you like the assets a bit, and are prepared to wait 15-30 years, you will likely realise the discount. The discount narrowing may pay for the fees you've borne in the interim. Otherwise don't buy it.|
|He has no incentive to reduce the discount. AUM would be reduced and therefore the fat fees they cream off at NSI level and the IT holds alot of money in a range of brompton funds.
The only way is for the discount to be managed is when Duffield sells down his stake to a minority holding.|
|The words they use are essentially true ("no satisfactory solution") if they are advised by Duffield that he will not vote for any type of program which aims at reducing the discout. Why would he?|
|Totally! An hilarious cut'n'paste from one report to the next. Is hardly rocket science to initiate a buyback, which would be highly accretive to NAV & of benefit to all.
Still - NSI is what it is. It's the pretence I find so irritating.|
"During the period under review, the Company's shares continued to trade at a
significant discount to their NAV. Your Board has explored ways of reducing
this discount but no satisfactory solution has been found. The position is,
however, kept under continual review. "|
|cgt dies on death so will be a pivotal moment here.|
|Duffield's 77, he could easily live to be 100. Actuarial tables alone say he has another almost 10 years, and why would his death lead to a winding up? Priorities at NSI may change, but generally heirs seem happy to keep ITs going (look at the plethora of "family wealth" trusts around).
"...The fund also provides a steady stream of fees for his new venture and it is not cheap. On top of the basic management charge of 0.75% there is a performance fee of 15% of the growth in net assets over 3-month Libor plus 1% subject to a high watermark. There are also the fees charged by the managers of the underlying funds, hence the ongoing charges figure of 0.93%."
Performance fees always rankle, but 0.75%/0.93%? That's one of my cheaper ITs. Of course be lower, particularly as a fund-of-funds, but there's ITs out there charging 1.5% basic, and some inc performance fee getting up to some really daft levels. NSI isn't an outlier on fees.
I'm a fan of NSI - I like "cheap" - and it's true that one day the discount should come in, but I'm expecting it to be the same in 7 years time as it was 7 years ago, and as it is now.|
Not too unreasonable to have a tender 10-20% above current price|
|Maintaining more or less the same NAV discount. One day, it'll close.|
|nice little climber recently|
|Up again today, tracking NAV - 136p month-end will have improved a little with £ tank.
No nearer seeing any kind of return, but still get a warm glow.|