Excellent article. The behaviour of the parties continues to be very questionable indeed. Given an understanding of AMP's actions, one wonders why on earth one would want them managing their capital without a good understanding of what the alternatives are - yet so many people are locked in to them for wealth management. Actions speak louder than words, or should....
Over the decades I have come across all too many fund managers who, in my opinion, have made decisions that favour themselves at the expense of their unitholders / shareholders. However this is the first time I recall a manager so stubbornly maintaining a course of action that is negative for both parties. That it be AMP does not surprise. Declaration of Interest: I have an indirect interest in the China Fund through WAM and possibly other LICs.
I have followed this closely from the moment the activists started agitating and it has played out exactly as it looked it would. I only have two questions to this- which cuts to the heart of the core issue of "why does the share price lag the NAV?". 1. Have any of the people who work for the stakeholders involved in this- from the Board, to the Fund Manager, the Portfolio Manager, the Consulting Experts, the Trust, the Activists, the Marketing People and the PR agencies, ever stood in front of an investor, a broker or a financial adviser and promoted a Listed Investment Company/ Trust? 2. Can any of them point to a single instance where they can show that anything they have done has resulted in a share price rising as a result?
Hi Boyd One man involved in this story who can without doubt answer yes to both the questions you raised is Geoff Wilson, in the interest of full disclosure I used to work at Wilson Asset Managment and can honestly say Geoff on many occasions has fought for shareholder rights and especially small shareholders rights. Some of his previous activism has also caused many a share to rise and benefited all shareholders. Geoff's efforts in the RHG/John Kinghorn battle spring to mind.