Invesco Enhanced Income Share Discussion Threads

[speedsgh] 15/8/2018 14:25

Mike Lombardi (NED) has sold 184,340 shares @ 74.75p = £137,794

Director/PDMR Shareholding -

[tim 3] 27/6/2018 12:44

Happy about this might have caught the bottom for a change!

[rcturner2] 27/6/2018 09:39

Invesco have come to their senses.

Bargain picked up :-)

[rahosi] 27/6/2018 09:29

Resolution with Invesco
Revised management fee basis of 80bps on first GBP80m of net asset value, 70bps on next GBP70m and 60bps thereafter, as previously agreed arrangements between the parties. The existing performance fee arrangements will be removed and the notice period reduced to 3 months. These new arrangements will take effect immediately and will be deemed to have had effect from 1 January 2018.

The Chairman, Donald Adamson, intends to stand down with immediate effect. Richard Williams, Chairman of the Management Engagement Committee, has informed the Board of his decision to stand down as a director of the Company with immediate effect.

[neilyb675] 25/6/2018 15:52

1.25 pence per Ordinary share. This dividend will be paid on 31 July 2018, to shareholders on the register on 6 July 2018. Shares will be quoted ex-dividend on 5 July 2018.

[tim 3] 25/6/2018 09:53

Bought some this morning.

[rahosi] 25/6/2018 08:31

60k against, voted

[rcturner2] 24/6/2018 19:05

agree

I will definitely vote against the motions, as should all small shareholders.

It is an outrageous attempt by large minority shareholders to feather their own nests at the expense of the rest of us.

[mad foetus] 24/6/2018 06:46

If it assists you I know some of the board personally and can assure you that they could have quite easily kept Invesco as managers and kept taking their annual fees. They made a difficult decision precisely because they wanted to do their jobs properly and not be pigs at the trough. ADVFN is full of examples of directors being motivated by self interest. This is a clear example of when they are not, and whether you agree with replacing Invesco or not, you should support the directors because to do otherwise is to send out a message that the board should not seek to hold the fund manager to account.

[noiseboy] 24/6/2018 00:05

I voted against too, Supporting the board and not Invesco Perpetual !

[speedsgh] 23/6/2018 21:41

MRF - Depends entirely on who you think is best looking after your own/shareholders interests and is most likely to do so in the future. Based on the information available in the public domain, I have decided to support the board & have therefore voted against all resolutions. One thing is for sure - I felt doing nothing was not an option.

[my retirement fund] 23/6/2018 19:51

So what are we meant to do with the latest corporate action. Vote for or against the resolutions, abstain or do nothing?

[noiseboy] 23/6/2018 17:59

Holding both here too, July Dividend announced 27th June last year, hopefully any day soon!

[neilyb675] 23/6/2018 12:33

Holding both

[bonnard] 23/6/2018 11:50

Can anyone tell me if IPEI has any advantages over NCYF? I would like to add another bond fund to my portfolio but end up adding to NCYF because of the 7%+ income which has increased every year.

[tim 3] 23/6/2018 10:44

Is there any reason why they would not?

Do people think the outcome of the dispute could have a negative impact on future returns,(I know if we knew the answer to that........lol)

Gut feel is agree with RC and others looks like a good buying opportunity tempted.

TIA.

[noiseboy] 23/6/2018 09:45

I wonder if the regular dividend due at the end of July will still happen?

[rcturner2] 18/6/2018 08:33

I have picked up another 35k shares.

[speedsgh] 12/6/2018 15:27

... Over at IPE – Invesco Perpetual Enhanced Income the battle is intensifying ahead of an EGM on 20 July. There are resolutions to remove two directors: Donald Adamson (Chairman), and Richard Williams (Chairman of the Management Engagement Committee), and two appoint two new directors, Hazel Adam and Howard Myles. As many of us suspected Invesco have confirmed that the row was not only about fees but also “concerns about Board governance”. Numis reports that Invesco thought the board was “overly aggressive” in the fee negotiations, serving a 48 hour ultimatum, and attempting “to insert additional, material changes to the investment management agreement that had not previously been discussed”. Invesco confirms that prior to its resignation, it had already agreed to cancel the performance fee and to reduce the annual management fee (albeit that it was in favour of keeping the performance fee)”.

The IPE board has hit back with its own circular which states that it “has behaved correctly” in attempting to renegotiate fees with Invesco and then initiating a “competitive and fair process for a new investment manager when Invesco chose to resign”. However, it is “now being pressured by a very large asset manager” in a “cynical attempt to use concentrated voting power against retail investors” who constitute the majority of the share register. The Board believes the Requisition is “an attempt to subvert the rights of the independent Directors to run the Company in the best interests of Shareholders”.

Personally, although I have some sympathy for Invesco’s position – it had done a good job – I’d be voting with the board simply as a matter of principle. I’m also deeply worried about its attempt to remove the directors which strikes me as overly vindictive. I think the move to renegotiate fees was entirely reasonable although one has a suspicion that the process might not have been handled brilliantly. It’s also clear that other investment management groups seem eager to bid for the mandate – assuming Invesco doesn’t try and grab back control.

Overall, I’d argue that neither side comes out of this slightly sad affair smelling of roses but the row does present an opportunity for income-based investors. The funds’ managers have delivered an NAV total return of 102.2% over the past decade versus 64.2% and 78.0% for the IA High yield and IA Strategic Bond sectors, respectively. Crucially the shares have fallen significantly since Invesco’s resignation, and are currently trading at a discount to NAV of 0.8% versus a premium of c.9%. That strikes me as a potential opportunity to buy back into a well-managed portfolio of bonds at a reasonable price. The running yield is now closer to 6.8% per annum which strikes me as a reasonable number, as long as the new managers are up to scratch.

[speedsgh] 11/6/2018 08:53

Invesco fees row is a tragedy for shareholder democracy -

[speedsgh] 11/6/2018 08:51

@CWA1 - Yes, it seems the gloves are now off. Difficult to know who to believe in these situations. There's always two sides to every story and the truth doubtless lies somewhere in between...

IPE publishes Circular to shareholders -

Situation overview

The situation may be broadly summarised as below:

· A requisition has been served on the Company by Invesco Perpetual and Practical Investment Fund asking that Donald Adamson, Chairman, and Richard Williams, Chairman of the Management Engagement Committee, be removed as directors of the Company and Ms. Hazel Adam, and Mr. Howard Myles, be appointed as directors of the Company.

· The Board believes that this Requisition is firmly against the interests of the Company's shareholders.

· The Board started negotiating the terms of its Investment Management Agreement with Invesco in November 2017, most notably around the level of management fees being paid and the removal of the performance fee. Despite good faith negotiations, Invesco subsequently resigned as the investment manager in April 2018. They did so after initially agreeing in writing to a new fee arrangement.

· Following Invesco's resignation the Board invited proposals from leading fixed income managers. Invesco were offered, but declined, the opportunity to participate in this competitive process.

· On 22nd May 2018, the Company received the aforementioned requisition demanding removal of Donald Adamson and Richard Williams. It is the Board's view that if Invesco had fully engaged with the Board during this process, it would understand the purpose of, and need for, an independent board for the successful running of a company. Invesco's actions would appear to clearly demonstrate that this is a lesson they are yet to learn.

· The Board believes Invesco Perpetual is using its clients' ownership position to disrupt the tender process for a new manager.

· The strong proposals received by the Board from a number of high-quality potential managers demonstrate the untenable nature of Invesco's position. Every proposal received would result in lower management costs as compared to what it currently pays. No party has proposed a performance fee. Furthermore a preliminary review of 5-year performance suggests that, when measured on a like for like basis against IPE's unleveraged performance, Invesco's historical performance is at approximately the mid-point of the performances quoted in the proposals.

· Costs matter - they go directly to Shareholder returns: They influence how much income the Company can distribute and what investment performance can be achieved. A further consequence of the lower fees offered by prospective managers is that dividend cover could potentially be fully restored and a positive contribution to reserves restarted, improving the long-term sustainability of the yield the Company offers.

· The Board has behaved correctly. It first attempted to renegotiate fees with Invesco and then, when that process was rejected by Invesco, initiated a competitive and fair process for a new investment manager when Invesco chose to resign.

· The Board is now being pressured by a very large asset manager. This is a cynical attempt to use concentrated voting power against retail investors who as platform registered owners or wealth management clients constitute the majority of the share register.

· The Board believes the Requisition can only be seen as an attempt to subvert the rights of the independent Directors to run the Company in the best interests of Shareholders.

· The Company is responding to a request for information from the FCA about the circumstances surrounding the requisition.

· The Board understands that, based on previous conversations with Invesco Perpetual, Invesco Perpetual has historically very rarely voted its shares at company general meetings. Given this past prudent behaviour, the Board would expect them to take a similar approach on these resolutions to ensure that the will of independent shareholders is not prejudiced.

[cwa1] 11/6/2018 07:29

Invesco fight back:-

[warrior boy] 04/6/2018 13:34

Good spot eeza. Jeff's article doesn't make good reading for Invesco. The BoD are doing there bit by looking after the interests of the shareholders. I'm waiting to see what the outcome is before rebuying.SP wouldn't be too good if the Invesco board's proposals get pushed through at the EGM. Maybe that's their agenda - drop the share price and buy more !!