Originally Posted by
Harrie
In previous posts, I had mentioned that fund managers operate under an investment mandate to the effect that there is usually self imposed limits on exposure to any one listed security on the NZX. With Milford funds management having the highest exposure to ATM as a funds management group I searched their website to see if there was anything in their investment statements to that effect and could not find anything. I emailed them to find out and got this response:
"We do have a limit of a maximum of 7% in any one NZX listed company, however, this is not a hard and fast rule.
If we felt that a company held excellent growth opportunities that we wanted to take advantage of we could hold more than this, however, any such decision would be carefully considered and investigated by both our Investment Committee and our Risk and Compliance department."
In view of the fact, that in the absence of any disclosure representing a change of 1% of the company shares over the last few months, they hold over twice their own maximums, they would have to have shown significant confidence in ATM's growth path to both their investment and compliance committees to maitain their 15% exposure.
It was for this reason I suspected that Milford could have been a seller, and hence comment around timliness of disclosure under the relevant act.
I can imagine that given the above investment mandate, the risk committee have got their work cut out to sanction maintaining that exposure!