London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Seems like Rock Nominees Ltd, (parent of Gresham House) have some minor quibbles about being ditched by GHS investment trust. They have called for the immediate return of GHS cash to shareholders, complete realisation of assets and return of capital within 24 months of meeting. This despite the opportunity of simply selling their stake to new managers Harwood. They are apparently deeply concerned about all the other investors, and very anxious about corporate governance. It certainly isn't petulant revenge, an attempt to shut down the trust for good if they are no longer allowed to manage it. That, of course, cannot possibly be the case, they are not, after all, petty, vindictive vipers. It's simply an alternative suggestion, for polite discussion at an EGM.
This was always going to end in a disagreement and like Fidelity with Genesis IT all investors should be offered a tender at NAV, especially as the Trust is replete with cash following Aegean takeover. This is proper corporate governance and not the let’s keep our jobs and ignore the retail investor which pervades. I note holders of 43% are calling for an EGM and hence the board should be thinking again. Unless there are plans to merge it with another it is far too small for most institutions so will continue to languish without a discount control. Buying back shares is a pretty hopeless measure as it will merely continue to decrease the value of the trust and hence its viability
Well Gresham and their supporters have succeeded in wrecking the company, and it's now going to be run down under Harwood over 2 years. Lousy outcome for all: the Gresham group will now have to wait for their cash, Harwood get no fees, and small investors are simply shafted with no choice in the matter. So much for treating other investors fairly, but at least Gresham won't be extracting enormous fees from the company any more, thanks to Helen Sinclair - she was the one really looking out for investors, and it would be really interesting to know the details of how Gresham colluded with other shareholders to force her out.
What about the small companies GHS invests in, now facing two years of depressed equity, under the cloud of forced sales, destroying both value and development capability. For incubating assets, that is pure poison. Published NAV probably cannot now be trusted, and neither can those who have seized control and sabotaged the company, just when it was starting to make great progress under Sinclair. None of this destruction was necessary or rational, imo, it is blatantly against shareholders interests.
The saboteurs have so far wiped £7m off the trust's value since they kneecapped Helen Sinclair. They sure know how to look after shareholders interests, those financial geniuses, and paragons of corporate governance.