Lms Capital Share Discussion Threads

[my retirement fund] 18/3/2016 08:17

I guess they are going to get their own back on shareholders now and the contempt and bitterness gathers pace, having been fettered over their last attempted heist.

[stupidboypike] 18/3/2016 08:16

Sold on this news, thankfully only at a tiny loss. Should never have bought again after the management proved to be hopeless. Good luck all holders.

Best regards SBP

[skyship] 18/3/2016 08:14

Yes - only LMS could invest £15m into UK Commercial Real Estate post 2009 and actually lose money. Bizarre that; especially as Brockton successfully raised £1/2bn for another new management fund late last year.

The current NAV will be c94p due to forex changes.

IMO the best bit in the Statement is this:

"The Directors' intention is that the realisation of the portfolio should be substantially complete within the next two years."

First time we have seen an actual timescale; enables us to more reasonably apply redemption yield calculations...

[eeza] 18/3/2016 08:07

Well, totally & utterly amazed by the write-down at Brockton.


WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!

[eeza] 18/3/2016 07:15

Results out

[mad foetus] 17/3/2016 12:23

in all seriousness, I don't think last year's plan was that outrageous. They obviously knew Tony Hayward, he knows the O&G sector better than anyone, and they thought there were good opportunities there. Shareholders disagreed and they took that onboard and withdrew their plans. I don't have a problem with any of that really.

What I would like to see, however, is a bit of reining in of directors fees which are astronomical in terms of the size of the fund.

[eeza] 17/3/2016 12:00

"I assume that they are wealthy enough and sensible enough to put their fiduciary duties above those of personal financial gain."

Lol !! once again.

Presumably they were wealthy enough in July last year, but given sufficient inducement they were quite prepared to fling s/hlders funds into the O & G sector, despite having previously agreed to wind up the Co, etc.

If the inducement was large enough they would do the same again, imo.

Untrustworthy = not worthy of trust.

FWIW I think they will now carry out s/hlders wishes and wind-up the Co.

Unless they get an offer they just can't refuse.

:-)

[mad foetus] 17/3/2016 11:43

can't argue with that, but one of the major shareholders indicated last year their unhappiness with the board and they hold enough shares to demand an EGM if required and to propose their own resolutions. I think any jiggery pokery and the board may face serious opposition, and I assume that they are wealthy enough and sensible enough to put their fiduciary duties above those of personal financial gain.

[nk104] 17/3/2016 11:39

Well that's the LMS problem in a nutshell. There's a large 'governance discount' here. If there was a consensus that the Board wanted to wind up the company and wanted to return funds to shareholders in a timely manner then the discount would be a heck of a lot smaller.

OK there was the tender a few months back, but that had to be dragged out of them. LMS is on my list to invest as funds become available because of the discount, but I'm not exactly busting a gut to invest because I don't think the Board are busting a gut to divest.

[skyship] 17/3/2016 11:29

MF - you would certainly have my vote.

I can't believe the BoD would really try yet again to subvert the liquidation programme, most especially because it was only 4months ago in the last Tender Circular that the Chairman wrote: "The Board expects to see continued progress with the realisation of assets and aims to make further returns of cash as the realisation strategy progresses."

Due to those unequivocal words, surely Chairman Martin Knight might even leave himself open to legal action in this matter...

[mad foetus] 17/3/2016 10:27

FWIW if they do try to do anything silly and not obviously in the best interests of current shareholders I am willing to put myself forward for election to the board.

FWIW I think investment companies should in general have a board member who represents ordinary investors, holds a reasonable number of shares and is not too aligned to the other members of the board (or the investment manager, where applicable) in terms of age, background, business relationships etc.

[mad foetus] 16/3/2016 12:56

Well, the shares are at a 30% discount to NAV. The LMS website is a total shambles - the news hasn't been updated for 4 years. So it is difficult to get an accurate picture but the NAVs on many investments look well out of date.

LMS has few (if any) employees, and so the sole concern of the directors has to be the shareholders. Given the 30% discount to NAV, it is hard to argue anything other than that an orderly disposal of assets is the best way of returning value to shareholders. The more people who make that point to the board the better imo, even if they barely acknowledge it.

[badtime] 16/3/2016 12:47

Sorry that shud read 'I wanted'

[badtime] 16/3/2016 12:47

Maybe..but u didn't want a prolonged discussion which is why I kept my email short and sweet ..but I did want a satisfactory reply :)

[mad foetus] 16/3/2016 12:29

I believe the directors in general prefer face to face meetings rather than prolonged email discussions and I don't think that can be criticised.

[badtime] 16/3/2016 12:23

I replied suggesting it was 'shabby' ..he's offered to meet :)

[mad foetus] 16/3/2016 12:05

yes, suspect it was the same as yours!

[badtime] 16/3/2016 12:02

MF ..did u get a reply?

[mad foetus] 16/3/2016 10:36

I think the key question is whether this board are a bunch of crooks looking to feather their own nests or a group of well-regarded, experienced businessmen looking to act lawfully and properly in the best interests of the company with a view to maximising the returns to shareholders. I believe reputation is important and hard-earned and cannot believe the board will consider anything other than an orderly winding up of the company.

I know there are some cynics here, but corporate governance is increasingly central to the management of investment companies, and with the shares currently trading at around a 30% discount to NAV, any board, properly advised of their duties and well aware of the shareholder reaction to last year's proposals, would reach any conclusion other than to propose an orderly winding up of the company together with a reduction of directors' remuneration in light of the reduced workload they are faced with. I doubt the board need to be reminded of any of this, though if anyone is nervous an email to LMS's brokers setting out concerns may help ensure the board's continued attention to their legal and regulatory responsibilities.

[badtime] 15/3/2016 23:56

I lapse of sanity

[my retirement fund] 15/3/2016 18:55

I was astonished you even bothered!

[badtime] 15/3/2016 18:23

Reply received....total waste of time asking!