Gen.acc.8se.pf Discussion Threads

[nerja] 23/3/2018 09:30

thanks dave, I will take a look just found another CMHY to look at

[davebowler] 23/3/2018 09:20

ASCI hold a similar amount to SHRS.

[nerja] 23/3/2018 09:06

Anybody know any investment trust that hold lots of prefs, I just bought some shrs they seem to have a lot and the market not cotton on yet, any others about

[speedsgh] 23/3/2018 09:03

So we now need to know, have Aviva been in the market buying up preferences shares of holders who have been spooked into selling by the uncertainty caused by the company's original statement that they intended to redeem the prefs at par? If they have, that would look very bad indeed.

[joe say] 23/3/2018 07:52

Agreed - pathetic (but I guess right in the end)

I'll be voting against this board - incapable, immoral and inept imo

[tiltonboy] 23/3/2018 07:10

Aviva backtrack

[skinny] 22/3/2018 13:34

Ironically one of my better (least pounded) performers today!

[speedsgh] 22/3/2018 09:13

Below is a comment posted under the following Times article which was published yesterday...

City attacks Aviva bid to cancel preference shares -

Galois (1 day ago)

Not quite a Ratner moment, but not far off it. For a company whose business model is based on trust, this could end up being a very expensive Pyrrhic victory.

The cost could be both reputational as well as financial.

Anyone still willing to deal with Aviva is under notice that Aviva is willing to seek out unconventional interpretations of their legal liabilities in order to reduce them.

And before they achieve their Pyrrhic victory, Aviva not only has to be absolutely sure that their novel interpretation of the intersection of company law, their articles and the specific terms of these instruments is water tight but also that there is no other legislation of any type which might have a bearing to the contrary.

Whatever the outcome, investors should logically charge Aviva a premium in the future for legal risk and customers should avoid them totally unless they are confident that their legal understanding of all relevant legal aspects is superior to Aviva’s.

As I said, almost a Ratner moment. Congratulations Sir Adrian and Mark Wilson, you have trashed your own and your company’s reputations.

[spectoacc] 22/3/2018 08:52

Times article:

"The irredeemable truth about Aviva
alistair osborne



Welcome to Aviva — the company whose “purpose is to help people defy uncertainty”. And how does it demonstrate that, you ask? Oh, mainly by going around doing over OAPs and charities.

It’s the latest uncertainty-defying venture from Mark Wilson, the insurer’s boss. Proving, as Aviva puts it, that “no one knows what’s round the corner”, Mr Wilson popped up at March 8’s results with plans to summarily cancel £450 million of preference shares, some in existence since 1992. Many are held by pensioners, relying on average coupons — a sort of fixed annual dividend — of 8.5 per cent a year to top up their retirement funds.

Yes, Aviva insists “no decision has yet been taken”. But the damage has been done. The prefs were sold as “irredeemable”: a word emblazoned across the front page of the prospectuses for all three issues. But who cares about that? Mr Wilson, finance chief Thomas Stoddard and their ingenious advisers reckon they can dodge round the semantics to save £38 million in annual interest.

How come? Well, having trawled through the Companies Act, case law and Aviva’s articles of association, they’ve decided irredeemable doesn’t mean the prefs can’t simply be cancelled. And who thought a prospectus should contain all relevant information? In fact, Aviva didn’t even have the decency to announce its plan, squirrelling it away in the results with the warning “we have the ability to cancel preference shares at par value”. The outcry has been entirely predictable.

True, Mr Wilson has a fiduciary duty to minimise the interest bill for Aviva shareholders. But, unluckily for him, many are the same people. On Tuesday an investor group with 15 per cent of the ordinary stock and 30 per cent of the prefs met Aviva chairman Sir Adrian Montague to demand the insurer back down. They included M&G Prudential, Invesco and Blackrock — funnily enough, the fund manager that Mr Wilson is joining as a non-exec. He didn’t attend the meeting — maybe unable to be on both sides at once.


No surprise, either, to see MPs on the Treasury committee and the Financial Conduct Authority demanding an explanation. There are wider ramifications, too, as implied by the £1 billion fall in the value of other companies’ prefs: if Aviva can get away with this sort of caper, what’s to stop others? Yes, FCA boss Andrew Bailey hardly covered himself in glory when Lloyds Banking Group wriggled out of the contract over its high-coupon “enhanced capital notes”. But at least it could point to a line in the prospectus on “early redemption for regulatory purposes”.

Aviva has no such defence. And what of the reputational damage for a business that boasts of giving “our 33 million customers the confidence and control to be ready for life’s opportunities and challenges”. Insurers’ small print is notorious enough. But who’d trust Aviva now?

What, too, of its great purpose? Aviva even has a film called Defy Uncertainty, straplined: “We’re here to help people when bad things happen to them”. It begins with the story of a caller’s 101-year-old aunt who was “broken in to”. Mr Wilson should watch it again."

[my retirement fund] 21/3/2018 19:27

Price rising but market slow to catch on about the news.Always intetesting how bad news travels faster than good news.I dont think we will see a complete recovery again accross the asset class though until the regulator has addressed the issue fully. I can see this one back at 1.60 though.

[davebowler] 21/3/2018 11:05

Mark Taber email;


Hi all

Thankyou for registering your details for the campaign action group I have started in response to requests from a large number of holders. As many of you will know I have organised several successful high profile campaigns in recent years which gives me good access to the financial media, regulators, institutional investors, legal advisers, politicians etc. I have spent the first ten days engaging with key parties to get the campaign organised and to generate publicity.

I hope you will understand that I do this on my own with few resources so communicating with the huge number of individuals affected is challenging. Even maintaining an email list and sending mass emails is very time consuming so I plan to communicate mainly through my free website (where I have set up a campaign information page and discussion forum) and Twitter. I will limit emails to information I prefer not to broadcast so please treat the contents as confidential. Also please appreciate that much of what I do and who I meet and talk must happen in private so I cannot share everything. Although you will hopefully see the output through media coverage, regulatory and political interventions.

The bedrock of all my successful campaigns has been the huge efforts made by the individual investors. In particular lobbying of regulators (the FCA), politicians (the Treasury Committee and your MP) and the company (Aviva). I have included contact details and suggestions on the campaign information page at:



The lobbying you have been doing is already having results. For example the Treasury Committee Chair (Nicky Morgan MP) has today sent an excellent letter to Andrew Bailey at the FCA as a result of the mass of communications her committee has already received. You can see the letter online at:



Also yesterday, following my emails to Andrew Bailey at the FCA, I was asked to meet the FCA urgently today. As a result I had a constructive meeting this morning where I was given the opportunity to set out all the key issues both with Aviva and the wider preference share market. The FCA recognises that this is an enormous issue and the letter they have now received from the Treasury Committee will reinforce that. I have agreed a process with the FCA whereby I will prepare a paper setting out the issues for them by the end of the week followed by further engagement. The FCA has particularly asked for any information from Aviva, analysts, media articles over the years since the preference shares were issued which reinforced the market view that the preference shares cannot be extinguished without consent of the holders by a separate vote. So please let me have anything you have or find. I would also be interested in any marketing documentation at the time of issue, original certificates etc.

Another development is that I have been asked to meet with Aviva tomorrow and have agreed as it will be a good opportunity to explain the issues face to face.

You will have seen the large amount of media coverage and I have added a list of coverage to the campaign information page to help you keep up to date. I also share coverage on Twitter. Please could you do the same and also post comments beneath the articles to show covering journalists the level of interest in the issue.

I need someone to volunteer to post links to the campaign page in the comments of newspaper coverage and on discussion forum to raise awareness with as many investors as possible. Please let me know if you can do this.

As a precaution I suggest you all the issue with your stockbrokers and particularly ask them to confirm that you will be able to vote on any resolution tabled by Aviva if necessary.

A number of you have asked about costs. I do this as a volunteer and do not expect payment. Also I do not believe in asking small retail investors to pay legal costs. I do have expenses (travel to and from London, subsistence, communications etc.) to cover towards which any SMALL contributions would be welcome via PayPal at: www.fixedincomeinvestments.co.uk/advertising-donations/
Also, I am sacrificing work I was doing on fundraising for a community charitable sports facility project to take on this campaign so, if we achieve an acceptable outcome, donations direct to the charity will be much appreciated.

Best regards

[my retirement fund] 20/3/2018 08:25

https://www.ft.com/content/784b5298-2b78-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4

[spectoacc] 18/3/2018 08:00

@andyj - I read it as 0.8p. See Aviva's 15th March update on website (not RNS'd).

Disagree with "highly likely" but agree GACA/B most at risk.

[andyj] 18/3/2018 04:23

It is now highly likely that they will attempt to cancel either GA, Aviva or both. The different voting structures, 4 to 1 in favour of preference holders at Aviva, compared to 1 to 1 at GA, make GA their likeliest target. However they still need to avoid FCA interest and obtain court approval and the institutions that hold these will be wielding their powers to prevent them. It is far from a done deal.Even supposing it is, it is hard to believe they would not make an offer that is attractive to preference shareholders, although it might have an effective date prior to the announcement. There is also mention of the GA premium of 8.8p to be paid. Can anyone clarify that this constitutes a worst case redemption at par of 108p?

[holts] 17/3/2018 22:26

Wilson has rolled into another part time job with black rock , not the most subtle of timing .

[spectoacc] 17/3/2018 19:41

Agreed - good letter @Coleridge, and "Irredeemable" has to mean "can't be cancelled". Did enjoy AV's weasel words on the 15th (which went completely un-RNS'd) to the effect that there were "a number of ways" in which the shares could be cancelled. The list was "by vote of holders, by the company buying back in the market" etc, as well as their legal loophole route - which is on a totally different level entirely.

Frankly, I'm amazed that after a week, after all the damage to the sector and to their reputation, Aviva are so far sticking to their guns. I have to agree that heads should roll - and I say that as someone who didn't hold any of the prefs on the first announcement.

[eeza] 17/3/2018 18:29

Only one thing missing from your letter Coleridge.

"The definition of 'Irredeemable'.

"Not terminable by payment of the principal" - Mirriam Webster
" Incapable of being bought back or paid off" - Dictionary.com

[coleridge4] 17/3/2018 16:21

A further bit of correspondence I've sent to Aviva having received a fairly standard holding response to my opening letter. I have also contacted the Treasury Committee headed by the Rt Hon Nicky Morgan MP as I think there are some systemic problems here- oppression of preference shareholders by ordinary shareholders and the unstable pref market now created in the UK:

LETTER TO AVIVA

There are many issues which arise here and we will, no doubt, have to wait for the outcome of the FCA’s enquiries and publication of Aviva’s own proposals before this issue can be resolved – if it ever can be...........

In the meantime, I have specifically asked the FCA to consider whether the shareholders in GACB, AV.A and AV.B shares were notified about this development at the same time as Aviva ordinary shareholder and GACA shareholders. As far as I can see there has not been any Regulatory News Announcement published about this matter on the RNS news feeds for those specific shares ( and that is still the case even today). This suggests that some groups of investor may have been alerted before others. That’s not appropriate in the case of price sensitive material.

Secondly, the wording of the initial announcement was ambiguous. You will find that many investors on bulletin boards who picked this up in the morning of 8 March 2018, as I did, took the wording to mean that a majority of preference shareholders would be required to effect a reduction of preference share capital (something they were unlikely to agree to if the price payable was merely par). I don’t think I was alone in thinking that either. The evidence is clear-cut – the price of these shares plummeted around lunchtime of 8 March 2018 when your CEO and FD said what the announcement actually meant – I.e that the weight of ordinary shareholders would be sufficient to outvote the preference shareholders. The problem is, this was not stated in a proper news release through the proper channels. Those who attended the meeting could make use of this information immediately, others would have to wait until it was too late. Again, differential treatment.

These shares were promoted as investments for retail investors. Every professional investor whom I have seen comment on the matter has expressed utter amazement that Aviva should suddenly suggest that a capital reduction at par was always a term of this issue which everyone should be aware of. If this was seriously the proposition when the shares were first being promoted more should have been made about it the and there should perhaps have been further reference to it in the annual accounts of Aviva plc and General Accident plc. The evidence also points in the opposite direction. In recent years the Aviva accounts have routinely spelled out the market value of the preference shares and I believe the ordinary shareholders recently authorised the company to effect a purchase of the preference shares at an amount not exceeding 105% of their market value. I have asked the FCA to consider these aspects and to confirm with the company that the current expressed interpretation is not the result of some new legal opinion sought by the company.

I have dealt with Aviva (or its predecessor companies) since 1987, I believe, even before the issue of these preference shares. I own ordinary shares in the company, have used your endowment policy products, have house, motor and breakdown cover with you. As I read the financial press and investor news forums I confess that the handling of this matter has shaken my belief in the core values of the company. The issue of a statement to the effect of “we’re thinking about cancelling your shares at par value, or we might not, but we’ll let you know” seems destined only to destroy value, at a stroke, created by preference shareholders over a long period. The company should have decided on a fixed proposal and then put it to shareholders. What has actually happened is that many long-term holders have incurred realised losses and you have created a speculative bubble as new holders sift through the debris. Reputation for straight dealing in business is hard won, but quickly lost. I hope that Aviva will now act to restore its reputation.

[spectoacc] 16/3/2018 13:51

True @Holts. Also, of course, they haven't actually decided as yet.... Muppets.

(I'm optimistic with the likes of Ecclesiastical on at them; I'm also at least quietly optimistic that a court wouldn't approve the capital reduction - it wouldn't take much to say "Irredeemable means can only be cancelled in extreme circumstances, such as a bankruptcy, and this is a mechanism constructed solely to deny preference shareholders of their rights". But fair point re Lloyds ECNs).

[holts] 16/3/2018 13:46

The only avenue that will stop them is legal or a put down from the FCA or sufficient fund managers of all types rattle their cage to concern them , if those ensure they remain in tact then we have something more secure than before in a low interest rate enviroment .

Bad publicity seems of little comcern , take Lloyds , most involved with the ECNs think they were gits but I would bet most still invest in them or use them for something .

If they were to get a genuine attack of conscience I would be amazed , of course if they change because of pressure it will be presented as a change because they really are a cuddly company .

[jonwig] 16/3/2018 09:13

Intriguing thought. I imagine all the meeings for cancellation would occuer in quick succession on the same day. GA will pass - a slam dunk. AV could be narrowly defeated.

The next day, AV issues a statement that GA prefs will be cancelled but AV won't. Apart from the absurdity of such an outcome (AV a laughing stock) wouldn't there be a legal challenge on the grounds that the various prefs rank pari passu? (I assume they do!)