Marlin

[modandm]

It is clearly opportunism but it they can realise a 25% gain by closing the fund, then why wouldn't you.

because there may be investors who still want to be invested in the asset class and are supportive. To fisher's credit the implementation of a capital return through increased dividend payments which is designed to increase investor interest and narrow the gap to NAV is an example of good governance.

My personal opinion is LIC's are a bit of a flawed structure and should'nt be allowed but nonetheless I don't see criticisim leveled as balanced or fair.

And no im not invested nor am I any particular fan of carmel and co.

[Random_Walker]

because there may be investors who still want to be invested in the asset class and are supportive. To fisher's credit the implementation of a capital return through increased dividend payments which is designed to increase investor interest and narrow the gap to NAV is an example of good governance.

Good governance would be instituting regular or at least one-off off-market tender buy-back at NAV (less 1 to 2% costs) to provide unit holders the opportunity to exit near NAV or to simply convert to an open-ended fund as proposed by Gary North way back when. However, I suspect either of those options has the potential to significantly reduce fees received by Fisher Funds so will probably never see the light of day (at least without some solid activism by shareholders).

[Anna Naum]

The outperformance quoted is of the NAV, not of the Shareprice. It would be great if investors could get out at NAV, but they currently can not. As for the so called dividend, it is partly a capital return, so the actual yield is NOT what it seems. To call a capital return (some of your invested money) a dividend is simply PR speak, it is NOT yield as most would think of it.

[BIRMANBOY]

Thats a mighty fine looking pig and a particularly fetching shade of lipstick however. Management fees are normal and expected by reasonable balanced individuals. If people think the fees are too high then they have a democratic right to do something about it...either canvass for voter support or exit the fund. If the fees were too high in relation to the results there would be a mass exodus...so I guess that answers that question. Whether you call it a yield or return of capital is somewhat immaterial since the cash doesnt care what you call it. ALso the policy states as you point out that the payout MAY be supported by a sell down of shares but they are constantly rebalancing their portfolio anyway. No fund will be without some duds. Bottom line is how much did you buy in for....what is the ongoing dividend yield....and how much can you exit for... Taking all these things into consideration..its a winner...for me.

But it is not real yield it is return of capital. They have to sell shares in the companies they hold in order to pay the so called dividend. At the same time they take a number of million in management fees. Sorry readers but the return of capital dressed up as a dividend is just a pig with lipstick.

You dont really believe in a year when Fook Yuu drops 80% (so far) that they actually had a yielding return.

To quote the Marlin May update:

'Dividend payments made in March, June, September and December. To meet the payments, Marlin Global will firstly utilise income from its investments and realised capital gains. If these are insufficient to cover the targeted payout Marlin Global may pay from its capital base'

[Balance]

because there may be investors who still want to be invested in the asset class and are supportive. To fisher's credit the implementation of a capital return through increased dividend payments which is designed to increase investor interest and narrow the gap to NAV is an example of good governance.

My personal opinion is LIC's are a bit of a flawed structure and should'nt be allowed but nonetheless I don't see criticisim leveled as balanced or fair.

And no im not invested nor am I any particular fan of carmel and co.

Another well trained investor of the Carmel Fisher school of investing.

You guys are trained so well that you actually think lousy performances are acceptable!

And return of capital as dividends!!!!

So you give someone $1. She badly manages the money and it's down so she says I will give some of your money back every quarter. Meanwhile, she still charges you 3%+ pa to manage and administer your money!

If a bank does that, I can imagine the hue and cry.

But dress up a pig with lipsticks and there are some who actually believe it's pretty!

Clap clap!

[Anna Naum]

It is clearly opportunism but it they can realise a 25% gain by closing the fund, then why wouldn't you.

Maybe but it is also opportunism by Fisher Funds and Carmel when they say vote against this, after all Carmel is charging approx $2m a year to run this little fund so we know where her interests are. Who do you back, the guy who want to offer you a 15+% return or the girl who wants to charge you fees no matter if the value of your investment goes up or down?

[BIRMANBOY]

Its like any financial package...if you pay too much..you get to contemplate your errors. Blameing the product is sort of like complaining about the hammer when it doesnt strike the nail cleanly.

The outperformance quoted is of the NAV, not of the Shareprice. It would be great if investors could get out at NAV, but they currently can not. As for the so called dividend, it is partly a capital return, so the actual yield is NOT what it seems. To call a capital return (some of your invested money) a dividend is simply PR speak, it is NOT yield as most would think of it.

[BIRMANBOY]

OH gosh thats a hard one lets see.....close it down and get a one time 15% or keep it going and get annual yield of 9% plus sitting with unrealized capital gain any time I want. As Homer says...DOHHH.

Maybe but it is also opportunism by Fisher Funds and Carmel when they say vote against this, after all Carmel is charging approx $2m a year to run this little fund so we know where her interests are. Who do you back, the guy who want to offer you a 15+% return or the girl who wants to charge you fees no matter if the value of your investment goes up or down?

[Balance]

Its like any financial package...if you pay too much..you get to contemplate your errors. Blameing the product is sort of like complaining about the hammer when it doesnt strike the nail cleanly.

Nope. It's the holder of the hammer we are pointing the fault at.

Gee ... she HAS trained you well!

[Anna Naum]

Its like any financial package...if you pay too much..you get to contemplate your errors. Blameing the product is sort of like complaining about the hammer when it doesnt strike the nail cleanly.

Maybe but when Marlin was first listed it did not talk in the prospectus about dividends being paid out from the capital invested. That was a change they made so that they could try and close the discount to NAV (was nearly 30%) so for the 3,000 investors in MArlin who purchased on floating, they have seen this so called quality investment fall to a big discount to the value of the assets and then they get paid back the money they invested dressed up as a dividend.

In years gone past it was Sir Ron and the likes that looked at companies that were trading at a discount to the value of the assets, launched a takeover and made the money for themselves. At least in this case Elevation Capital is looking to allow all shareholders to benefit, not just its own.