Jpmorgan Russian Securit... Share Discussion Threads

[dcr17] 01/11/2022 13:42

"If the Resolution is not passed, the Company will continue to be managed under its existing investment objective and policy and the Directors will reassess the options for the future of the Company."

From the circular

[loganair] 01/11/2022 13:16

JRS did say, even after things return to a relatively normal state of affairs, their intentions are to keep some Russian stocks in the renamed fund.

I just hope when JRS say Africa, they do not mean just South Africa, Egypt and Nigeria as is usually the case.

[roberthoneyman] 01/11/2022 13:01

I've no idea why anyone would rather the fund was wound up with lawyers and accountants crawling all over it. As you say winding up is not an option anyway. Some more details on what they have in mind for new investments would be good. Going by the proposed name its a very wide remit. With Russia turning it's back on the West maybe Africa will become a very interesting arena to invest in and the fund goes on to do well on the basis of these new investments with the prospect of selling the Russian holdings on MOEX and obtaining the dividends still intact. Bearing in mind shareholders voted overwhelmingly to keep this fund going around March I think this is very much a hold.

[dcr17] 01/11/2022 11:48

galeforce - If anyone here is being naive it is you. As a shareholder of JRS you own a percentage of the trust and the proportionate amount of its assets. Just because someone resigns as its manager does not mean you lose those assets.

Also it is written right there in the rns that winding up is not a viable option.
"...Against this context, given the illiquidity of the Company's existing Russian securities (resulting in a wind up or a merger not being considered to be viable options for the Company)...."

[dcr17] 01/11/2022 11:44

roberthoneyman - Just search for JRS in telegram and you should be able to join. It is an open group. Tell me if you can't find it. I will try to find a link then.

[dcr17] 01/11/2022 11:42

loganair (4292) - I completely agree that there would be no institutional interest if this remains a solely russian fund but I fail to understand how this affects the private retail investor.
What is your reasoning for this. I hope you keep in mind that you only get what the shares are worth when the MOEX reopens. If the share price does not increase up to the NAV then, JPM would need to conduct share buybacks which would compensate for the demand shortage created by the lack of institutional interest.

[loganair] 01/11/2022 10:34

The Moex was little changed at 2170 on the first trading day of November, after booking a 10% advance in October, as investors continued to monitor blue-chip stocks announcing dividend payment.

Rosseti shares were among the top performers as the board of directors of some subsidiaries is set to meet today, and some may pay dividends. On the other hand, shares of Rosneft were down for a third day, and stocks of Severstal and Moscow Exchange were also lower.

[loganair] 01/11/2022 10:23

On the whole, on the balance of things, I think its better the change of mandate goes through rather than being left in limbo as maybe the case over the medium term.

[galeforce1] 01/11/2022 09:53

Popit - I think you are being a bit naive here, but you are absolutely entitled to your view on this and we will just have to disagree on the effects of the manager resigning.

I'm sure the change in mandate will go through, and IMO that's a good thing.

[roberthoneyman] 01/11/2022 09:11

Please share link to Telegram group

[loganair] 01/11/2022 09:02

dcr17 - No institutional investor from an "Unfriendly" country would wish to invest in a Trust with Russia in its name and wholly invested in Russia, therefore the 3 major share holders in JRS would have continued to have sold as would others have done so.

Therefore without any changes to JRS there will be no institutional interest in the Trust which will not be good for the Private Retail Investor.

[dcr17] 01/11/2022 07:42

The new mandate offers nothing to the private investor. It helps JPM with its ESG and reputation.

The new mandate also opens us PIs to risks like 1) selling at discounted prices when the MOEX does open. 2) dilution which messes up our return ratios.
Things that we are insured from in our current mandate.
And we have nothing to gain by the new mandate. Not even in the slightest.

Also if the new mandate passes, JPM will begin taking management fees which it currently does not.
Even if our current cash is able to be invested in africa and ME it would only make a difference of 1-2p/share per year which is not even worth mentioning. And not at all worth taking the major risks that we would be open to in the new mandate.

[dcr17] 01/11/2022 07:35

galeforce1 - that is not how it works at all. If you need a long complete technical answer complete with laws and everything, I suggest you join the JRS telegram group where we have people whose job requires them to know about this stuff.

With the current mandate, nobody, not even JPM can steal your shares. Even if they resign you get your shares' worth when the russian assets are able to be sold.

[galeforce1] 01/11/2022 06:17

Popit - if JPMAM quit as managers to the trust it is incredibly unlikely that we would find an alternative manager. This would lead to automatic suspension and then de-listing.

The de-listed trust would eventually be wound up, and virtually all the assets would go in professional fees (to the administrators/ liquidators, call them what you like).

[hindsight] 31/10/2022 18:25

Im voting No on my small amount, agree with Popit that delisting and windup best route. Had similar with Iceland bank bond that was delisted and overseen by Anson for 4 years till payout complete. Naturally they charge too much as they all do but nothing like a listing, management, etc cost.
Think the Iceland recovery rate of 75% will be lot better than here, but who knows. Clear Russian army in for a rough winter and so is their economy, so wont need to wait 4 years to know.

[popit] 31/10/2022 17:41

galeforce1

“If they quit we will be suspended and then de-listed and all the assets of the trust will disappear in huge fees to the liquidators.”

That is not correct. If JPM were to quit then the Board can either appoint a new manager or manage the trust themselves.

You are also confusing delisting and winding up. They are different things. A winding up would require the shareholders to vote for it. And even if it was wound up the Moex shares cannot be sold at present. When they can be sold the shareholders would get £7 a share.

A winding up would actually be the best option for existing shareholders as they will not have any dilution and they will eventually receive £7 a share.

[galeforce1] 31/10/2022 16:42

I'm going to vote in favour of the change of mandate and the change of name.

The priority here, in my view, is retaining JPMAM as asset manager. If we don't make these changes they will quit (and I'm sure they have plenty of ways of doing this, whatever's written in their management contract with the trust).

If they quit we will be suspended and then de-listed and all the assets of the trust will disappear in huge fees to the liquidators.

If we can remain listed there remains a chance of recovering something here.

[popit] 31/10/2022 12:24

loganair

If I own 100,000 shares in JRS, why would I want to spend another £40,000 in a 1 for 1 Rights Issue at 40p, just so that I can stand still? It makes no sense.

And I can’t afford another £40,000 anyway, and so I will be automatically diluted.

Talk of a ring fencing of the frozen Russian shares is all well and good, but at the moment it is just wishful thinking from some unknown analyst. There is no evidence anywhere that JRS is going to do any ring fencing if there is a capital raise.

A winding up of JRS is actually a far better outcome for me than a big dilution. At least with a winding up I will know that the £7 NAV frozen Russian shares are still there, and hopefully they will be unfrozen in the not too distant future.

[essentialinvestor] 31/10/2022 11:36

Surprised JPM have not walked away, may still happen and a Trust wind up follows.

[hindsight] 31/10/2022 11:31

Rob Morgan, investment analyst for Charles Stanley, said that there was "strong case for winding up the trust" given the "ongoing viability, plus prospects for recovering any remaining value from Russian holdings have diminished".


Loganair, where have they said this ????

hindsight - I've just quoted exactly what Charles Stanley have been saying, what more evidence do you require????

[squeaky19] 31/10/2022 11:07

loganair

sorry, maybe I just don't get it?

but my understanding of you participating in a rights issue to avoid dilution is mathematically identical to that explained by popit?

i.e. you pay some money to end up exactly where you currently are in terms of NAV?

which means you have poured money down the drain just to stand still. Why would you or anyone else do this???

"There is talk" seems to relate to a talking head on Quoteddata. Unless you or anyone else can provide evidence that the "talk" is by someone who actually has any involvement or influence at JRS? Can you provide this evidence? Or is it "just talk"?

[loganair] 31/10/2022 10:48

When reading other posters posts, I'm often left with the feeling that they have not fully reading my posts.

s19 - If a "Rights Issue" I would also take part, therefore no dilution in my shares.

There is talk if a Capital Raise should happen then the current Russian investments with the frozen dividends be ringed fenced off with its own separate share structure within the new Trust. How may this work - the original JRS share holders could be issued with "A" class shares in the new trust which would give these share holders all rights over the ring fenced Russian stocks and associated frozen dividends.

Therefore any Capital Raise may not necessarily include any assets currently held in Russia.

[squeaky19] 31/10/2022 10:28

I'm still struggling with the idea that CLIG would vote for a capital raise?

As popit points out you (they) would need to spend lots of money just to stand still in terms of NAV if the raise was at 40p. And then end up with a lot of shares in Africa. Why would anyone do that if the alternative was sit tight, spend no money and lose no NAV?

"There is talk of ring fenced..." by some talking head called James Carthew. Is he involved in running JRS? Is he an investor in JRS? Or is he paid to talk?

I have no idea what is going on here, but I will simply repeat what I have read and no-one has yet challenged:

The company has to ask the shareholders to approve proposals to do things. That is why we are being asked to vote on the name / mandate change.

For the same reason the company MUST ask shareholders to approve a capital raise of any kind.

So why would CLIG or anyone else vote to destroy the remaining value that they hold by approving a capital raise should such a subsequent question be put to the shareholders?

And loganair, why do you keep saying you would be "ok with a capital raise", unless you are telling us that you don't own any JRS shares at all and hence don't have any value to be destroyed by such a raise?