The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
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.
No, I mean partners. Ince in the UK is made up of various Limited Liability Partnerships. Ince Gordon Dadds AP LLP , for example, has been 35 of 84 partners resign.
@erratum. You have grossly misrepresented what I said. Your version of my statements are materially different to the words that I used.
What I said were the following. They can be easily checked from my recent posting history. Your words are made up!
1) "I wondered if the dividend was prudent or even legal".
I said that, because they had announced that they had maxed their RCF. I don't consider it prudent for company with limited cash to be paying a dividend. According to the Companies Act 2006 a dividend be paid only if there are sufficient distributable profits. It's difficult to determine, hence my use of the word 'wondered'.
2) "Arden itself never being very profitable"
This is a true statement. It is very different to what you claimed that I said.
3) "Trying to be 'right' is lethal in investing"
Go and read a few investment books, e.g. Minervini, where you'll read precisely what I said.
Found it, thank you for this. With you number have gone right back to the founding of the LP i 2015 to get those numbers. So for this LP as you can see the vast majority of that number left/were let go, when it went in to receivership (prior to the takeover) and a handful more during the COVID lock down period (the company announced a round of redundancies then). Part of the stated strategy during the takeover was to reduce the number of unprofitable partners and clearly this was a big part of why the "Old"Ince was not profitable and hence why it went in to receivership.
If you look over the last year it is 6 departures and 6 appointments so it is stable for this LP and appear to be expanding for others.
@CaneToad. .... all the best to you. We will get the next financial snapshot from the company in September so that will give you the opportunity to get the confirmation you need to either buy back in or pat yourself on the back for dodging the bullet.
That's not correct. Those legacy Ince partners who stayed were all appointed to the LLP on 31 December 2018, at the time of the liquidation, as is clearly shown on Companies House. The 34 are all people who have quit Ince/Gordon Dadds under the current management. Those are the facts.
@BitterestPill - I disagree with your assessment but either-way I think we can agree that the significant bulk of the departures happened a number of years ago.
If I understand your original point correctly, I think it was how do they replace the revenue from these departed fee earners. I would contend the revenue reduction from these fee earner departures in FY2019 or FY2020 has already been lapped by subsequent full year accounts/ trading updates. In the LP you highlighted previously, we can see that membership has been stable over the last 12 months. We can also see that groups headline revenue numbers reported at 31.03.21 and 31.03.22 (from recent trading update) were (roughly) the same. So unless we are seeing a significant net decline in fee earners since 31.03.22 I cannot see the current/ go forward revenue hole that you can see.