London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

................"There is a list of companies being shorted by fund manager etc. For example 8.8% of Anglo American mining company is being shorted"...................

............can you tell us where this list is published please, Armada? My understanding is that if an existing holder of shares wants to sell them - perhaps intending to buy them back in the future because he thinks the short term price will fall, it's called a share sale - not opening a short position. The disclosures that have to be made about short positions of more than 0.5% of any UK listed company's shares relate to the legal obligation of the seller to repurchase shares borrowed so he can return them to the beneficial owner.

Never mind that short positions are opened by all and sundry - that's a calculated gamble that is often taken, by hedge funds in particular. It's what a lot of them do. The sheer weight of money they throw at the task of value destruction that's the key. It's designed to panic weaker investors, trigger stop losses and generally decimate a target company's share price. Damaging dossiers add to the effect.

Of far more interest - and relevance - is who lent (in this case MW and maybe Gotham City and others) the shares they sold before MW published the cr*pit did. My guess is that it's either one or more of the institutional holders who investors in the relevant funds think are investing the money they put into the funds to be carefully managing for their future good, when in fact the fund managers in the relevant institutions are lending their shares to outfits like MW, who pay fees for borrowing them which the Funds pocket for themselves. Later, they take back the shares, usually as damaged goods, claiming it doesn't make any difference because they invest for the long term. Bollo*ks. They all deny doing it and there is no regulatory requirement of Pension Fund managers to publish the results of stock lending. It might be somewhere in the small print somewhere that you say they can do it, but no Pension Fund Managers that I know of makes a single reference to lending shares beneficially owned by people investing to provide income for their twilight years, to low-lifes like Carson Block.

Why is this allowed to happen? Because the Government (thanks to Gordon Brown although no Chancellor since had done anything about it) owns the regulators and it makes a fortune for the Treasury. Whilst the latter can't really get at the trillions invested in pensions, it can tax the profits of the crooked outfits that are borrowing shares you own and turning them into weapons used against you.

One way to hit back? Ask the fund mangers of all the funds your pension savings are invested in to confirm definitively in writing that they don't lend shares as above. They'll either lie, not answer or come up with a **** and bull story.

Add internet brokers to the list.

Who cares what MF thinks?

dyor

contd...
2 months later: https://www.investegate.co.uk/juridica-inv-ltd--jil-/rns/corporate-update/201511180700050715G/

In JIL’s 2008 accounts the loans had been described as loans. Thereafter they were called “debt securities” and presented as "belonging” to JIL. The big one was the so-called “‘LCD case” (Case 8008L). No-one was told what the US part had settled for – only what about what were in fact loan repayments. What JIL received was called ‘case proceeds’, ‘cash profits’, think up a name for yourself. By the time the music stopped (it had actually stopped by 2012 and been confirmed on appeal in 2014 when the overseas parts (c.40% of 8008L) had been rejected at highest Federal Court level under the provisions of the Sherman Act, but written up in JIL’s accounts) a need for a performance fee had arisen. An upcoming appeal was flagged to put things right. Baloney.
In 2015, after the “performance fee” of $14.5m had been paid to the ‘manager' (JCML, controlled by Fields - 20% of the increase in net assets above a cum hurdle of 8%; net assets hadn’t increased, either actual or adjusted) the failure to have 8008’s appeal heard by the Supreme Court was announced. $30m was written off the pumped up valuation of a case JIL didn’t own. The shares crashed. The chairman (the Lord Brennan QC) stated in 2015:
“From inception to date, the Company’s investments have generated US$275.6 million in gross proceeds. Included in this amount is US$13.1 million in gross proceeds received by the Company subsequent to 31 December 2014. Approximately US$64.1 million of these proceeds have been directed towards meeting contingent investment funding obligations and payment of taxes (or in the case of proceeds received during 2014, reserving for estimated taxes). As a result of this activity, a total of US$211.5 million represents our investments’ life-to-date net cash proceeds”…..
……..these were mostly loan repayments. Repaying loans doesn’t increase net assets.
Why was the performance fee paid?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111027/Russian-former-beauty-queen-wins-3-3million-share-lawyer-ex-husband-s-6million-fortune-judge-tells-ll-cut-800-000-year-spending.html
Could give rise to a new term: “***** du jour”.
There's a lot more. The above is just a part of it. JIL even paid Fields’s US tax bills.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pwc-probed-over-failed-funder-of-court-claims-m8n8wrf5q
I wonder who complained?
...it's still going on…………..
Conclusion? Anything that involves valuing future events carries risk. Ultimately everything depends on the honesty and integrity of directors and senior management, which seems to be all too often absent in the City now. Cue: auditors, who play an important role. I'm not sure what more E&Y could have done. The response to MW seems robust and sincere but a cynic might say: "it would do".

I've taken a small long position for interest (£10k at 765p avge).

all imo - dyor
GL

This is mainly directed at the accountants on here but might be of interest to anyone who lost money in the company that claimed to be the first to list in the litigation finance industry - Juridica Investments (JIL). My post is split into two (?) - ignore it if you're not interested. It's a distasteful story and it's still going on. You wouldn't believe the reluctance of those who should be protecting pension and other savers' money (regulators - I didn't bother with the FCA; I never do - I'm talking others further up the ladder) to expose 'establishment': individuals, companies and so-called 'professional firms' for having blatantly failed in their duties whilst being paid far more than they should have been even if they had done their jobs honestly and competently.
Here goes:
.........who DIDN'T have an entitlement to the proceeds of settlement of the cases described in vague terms in the RNS (and a/cs) but were expected to yield $ hundreds of millions (certainly the LCD case - it emerged later as case 8008L)?
https://www.investegate.co.uk/juridica-inv-ltd--jil-/rns/significant-new-investment--/200811140700181581I/
"Significant new investment"?? It was an unsecured loan to Fields - with no recourse - thanks to the "standby support agreement".
Part of the (3 part) loan agreement) was hidden in the update. Below is the agreement in full: Try not to let your eyes glaze over and start to look like Marty Feldman when the word "swap" appears (Woodford evidently did):
"JIL has loaned FSS $62 million at a compounding annual interest rate of 12 percent pursuant to a loan agreement and promissory note (the 'Note'). The Loan and Note are repayable over 10 years and are secured by FSS's economic interests in the Partnership and outcomes of the Initial Portfolio of cases.
In light of the fact that the Loan and Note are with recourse to FSS (but not the FSS members) at the end of the term of the Loan, FSS has entered into a swap agreement with Riverbend Investments Limited ('Riverbend'), a wholly-owned subsidiary of JIL (the 'Swap'). Under the Swap, Riverbend will pay FSS any amounts payable under the Loan or Note at the end of the term of the Loan, to the extent that FSS does not have sufficient income from the Partnership to allow such payment. As consideration, Riverbend will be entitled to an annual amount equal to the greater of US $3.5 million or 36 percent of the principal and interest then due under the Loan and Note (subject to FSS having sufficient income received from the Partnership to pay the same).
Under a standby support arrangement, JIL has agreed to provide Riverbend with funding to enable Riverbend to perform its obligations under the Swap".

Further loans followed in 2009 and 2011.
It wasn't until someone who has posted here a few times recently pointed out to m'lud that JIL was guaranteeing itself and that the best it could hope for was to have the loans and interest repaid, that panic set in.....

tbc

For those whose life has reached a point such that they are given, on a Saturday night, to wading through audit reports, here's what E&Y (London Office, not Guernsey) had to say in the 2018 financial statements:
" There is also the risk that management may influence the significant judgments and
estimates in respect of the valuation of investments.
For all investments where there had been a change in fair value, we tested the assumptions, performed external research on the status of litigation, obtained supporting documentation,
considered any relevant secondary market trading and challenged management’s judgments. Where there had not been a change to assessed fair value during the year, we tested a sample of investments applying a combination of methods, including obtaining
other supporting information as appropriate and reviewing the contract documentation, if
acquired in the current period.
Additionally, we performed independent research in the public domain to ensure that all factors we have considered in the valuation are accurate and complete. We held discussions with management to determine the qualitative factors and ongoing legal proceedings and whether there have been any changes in the facts and circumstances that suggest that the fair valuation
is not appropriate. In all cases above, we considered whether the investments tested were assessed for fair value consistent with the detailed fair value policy guidelines maintained by management.
The valuation of investments is determined to be within an acceptable range of fair values. Appropriate inputs to the valuations were used for investments tested and.management judgements and estimates are considered to be reasonable and supported by relevant evidence.
The investment valuations calculated by management are consistent with the Burford accounting policy and detailed valuation guidelines and are within an acceptable range.
Based on our procedures performed we had no matters to report to management".

See P56-64 for the full report:
https://www.burfordcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/BUR-31172-Annual-Report-2018-Web.pdf

.........other selective text:
"At our request, management engaged an independent counsel to perform an annual
review of a specific investment selected by us. The review focussed on the significance
of the legal judgments and of the subsequent developments arising thereon. We reviewed
his conclusions, independence and objectivity and discussed with him the approach and
judgements considered in reaching his conclusion.
We engaged our valuation specialists to review samples of larger and higher risk investments to: ¦ use their relevant industry knowledge and experience to assess and corroborate
the valuation metrics;
¦ assist us to determine whether the methodologies used and judgements applied to value investments were appropriate and consistent."

Did Carson - and Daniel Yu - do the same?. "Arguably" they might they be regarded as 'sp

Most long term investors (if you asked them) would say they don't know why shorting is allowed. It can only legally be done by the party wanting to go short borrowing the shares it wants to sell from an existing holder. There is one exception - market makers can go short "as long as it is a normal part of their market making activity". This gives a breed of people who are (rightly imv) deeply mistrusted effective free rein, but that's another subject.

So, who lent the shares to MW to do its dirty work on BUR? And to the other parties who will have been on MW's bandwagon? Has to be institutions. There's no restrictions I can find put on internet brokers either. I did some internet research into this recently and the only reference I found was by one internet broker (interactive investor) which claimed it never lent stocks held in its nominee company. This suggested to me that other internet brokers might engage in lending. If they do , it would mean shares beneficially owned by investors being used as weapons turned against their real owners. It beggars belief.

But not if you understand the real motivation behind it all and who gets to benefit big time. Institutions don't lend shares only for shorting purposes of course. The practice is used for all kinds of hedging purposes which muddies the waters to some extent (no apologies for the pun - to me the practice is crooked). Fund managers pocket the lending fees (not personally) and the fact the shares lent are generally returned as 'damaged goods' is explained away by nonsense like: "we invest for the long term and short term price changes don't affect our investors". Garbage. What of the position of a pensioner converting to annuity, or wanting to draw down at the same time as (for instance) BUR is returned to his fund worth a third of what it was before they were lent? Where are the trustees of the fund while all this is going on? Ans? They come from the same camp as the non-execs who chair remuneration committees in FTSE 100 companies - members of the club; if they don't play by the City's rules, they don't get reappointed, or fat fees for doing FA anywhere else.

Who is the big winner? Got it in one. The Government. The Treasury can't lay its greedy hands on pension savings wile its in tax wrappers - there are trillions to play for. Gordon Brown had a go by abolishing dividend tax credits; odd that no-one's reversed it - $6bn a year lost by pension savers - small beer. Let inv banks and UK hedge funds strip out money - profits from shorting shares owned by savers who entrust money to Funds pretending they've got their interests at heart. No-one says a word - most do it and don't declare the results.

Who gets the tax on the investment banks' (and UK hedge funds') profits - and their indecently paid managers' packages?

The City provides about 30% of the UK tax take.

No - shorting won't be banned any time soon.

Where are the disclosures of more than 0.5% holdings lent?

dyor

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for dickupham

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)