Marlin

**Balance** · 24-10-2012, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Anna Naum

Interesting thing is that the two so called independent directors were both appointed in the last 12 months so have yet to be voted for by shareholders.......thus can they really say the represent shareholders?

Chalkie's take on Marlin and the issue of the independence of the independent directors :

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...wounded-Marlin

Excerpt : "Swasbrook was aware the contract was up for renewal and contacted Marlin independent director Mark Todd on September 13 to talk about his proposal. Todd resigned three days later. His resignation left just three directors on Marlin's board - Carmel Fisher, Alistair Ryan and Carol Campbell. The latter two are classified as independent.The same three directors comprise the boards of the other two Fisher-managed investment trusts - Kingfish and Barramundi. With Ryan and Campbell collecting directors' fees from three Fisher funds, are they really independent? Had Marlin been a British company, the answer would be no. In 2003, Britain's financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority, considered the issue of investment trust board independence."

Now, would Alistair and Carol be prepared to forgo between $90,000 to $150,000 a year in fees?

Silly question?

**Balance** · 24-10-2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by SparkyTheClown

I'll grab the popcorn, does someone want to do a cheese platter as well?

Indeed.

I wonder if Elevation will make an issue out of Alistair Ryan's being seen by some in the market as a loyal servant of Evan Davies, ex-CEO of Sky City. As CFO, Evan Davies and Alistair Ryan embarked on a series of ill-conceived wealth destructive debt funded acquisitions - Adelaide Casino, Canbet, Entertainment Centre, Queenstown etc while allowing the cash cow Auckland casino to run down to such a extent that dealers had to wear flea collars to keep away the fleas infecting the main casino floors!

**slimwin** · 24-10-2012, 10:55 AM

Interesting article. It's swayed me.

CJ · 24-10-2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by slimwin

Interesting article. It's swayed me.

Swayed you? into giving them a chance to narrow the discount or winding it up? Or it just made your head dizzle and you nearly fell over?

**Balance** · 24-10-2012, 11:21 AM

[QUOTE=CJ;383905]

Originally Posted by slimwin

Interesting article. It's swayed me.[/QUOTEs] Swayed you? into giving them a chance to narrow the discount or winding it up? Or it just made your head dizzle and you nearly fell over?

I predict Fisher Fund will reach a settlement with Elevation.

Otherwise, Fisher's track record of '"buying some and keep buying to get short term exceptional performances and attracting more funds under management with the ultimate end result of 'buying high and selling low'" will come under scrutiny.

Examples? Rakon, Pumpkin Patch, TUA but to name 3! Then, there's all that lovely stocks in ASX bought with same strategy under Barramundi.

I still remember the infamous Prudential Emerging Companies' Trust of 1992 to 1994.

**slimwin** · 24-10-2012, 01:15 PM

Swayed me in as much as I was happy to let Malin carry on and prove itself but I hadn't followed the appointment of directors as close as I should.

Remembering the vote is non-binding, I don't believe elevation will manage a return of capital but it should cause an inward look from the directors of Fischer.

I also don't think they will want the bad press.

Each their own CJ. I'm not selling yet.

**Random_Walker** · 24-10-2012, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by SparkyTheClown

Balance, you may have a very good point. It might affect Fishers too much to have a bare-knuckle fight with a fund minnow. Elevation can't lose with the lack of publicity no matter what the outcome. Fisher's don't need the bad press. Perhaps there will be an off-market transaction.....

May be if they are sensible they will offer to make the fund open ended or at least run an off-market tender offer to buyback stock at NAV (less costs)

**Jaa** · 25-10-2012, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Random_Walker

May be if they are sensible they will offer to make the fund open ended or at least run an off-market tender offer to buyback stock at NAV (less costs)

I have been invested in Templeton Emerging Markets on the NZX (TEM) for 6 years or so and they ran an off-market tender a couple of years ago that benefited both the people wishing to exit at a smaller discount and ongoing holders by increasing NAV. I think the tendered discount was about 4%.

It is a very good option in my opinion to narrow discounts to NAV. Though in hindsight the fact that so many shareholders took up the offer was a clear signal to get out of emerging market shares for a while!

For those interested TEM is very well run by its English based board with an excellent manager and high long term returns.