According to The Sun Daily website:
City of London Investment Management Co Ltd has written a letter to fund manager Tan Teng Boo to explain why it and Laxey Partners Ltd, the single largest shareholder of icapital.biz with 11.39%, plan to vote against the reappointment of Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim as a director was due to the length of time he has been retired.
"Directors should not start a new term in office if they have retired from active employment for more than five years. City of London believes that the skills and contributions of a director outside this criterion may be too far removed from current business practices or thinking to truly add value to the board over the long term," City of London's portfolio manager Oliver Marchner said in a copy of the letter sent to SunBiz.
It also pointed out that Tunku Aziz as a board member has no "requisite experience and knowledge of a listed closed-end funds (CEFs) and has retired from active employment for more than five years.
In relation to the composition of the board, City of London's portfolio manager Oliver Marchner made reference to Section IV paragraph 2a of its Statement on Corporate Governance and Voting Policy for Closed-End Funds (9th Edition).
The Statement on Corporate Governance and Voting Policy for Closed-End Funds can be found here.
I hope that the letter is public, and that iCapital will publish the letter in an official announcement at Bursa's website. Since the last AGM was adjourned because of the question why City of London decided to vote against the director, other shareholders should be informed about their answer.
M.A.Wind, no guts to publish my earlier comments ?
ReplyDeleteyou didn't even tried to make sense of your gang's reasonings and of course you won't. as a sophisticated investor, you should b able to tell that those so called "reasons" are not justifiable at all.
the letter has called into question your gang's integrity, if they hav any in the 1st and last place. the letter is sent to ttb, y didn't they send to the 3000 plus yellow skin, board of dir and bursa ? y only 1 newspaper carry the article ?
ttb invited them to come the adjourned agm to explain in person. looks like they have no balls. choose to ignore the 3000 yellow skin and reply in this patronising manner.
looks like their statement of corporate governance only apply to everyone else except themselves ????
Dear Invesmon33,
ReplyDeleteI noticed you found a way to unlock your capslock-key, good. I don't publish comments written entirely in capital letters.
Yes, I am aware that there was an investors day in 2013, but fail to see how this helped iCapital the closed end fund, may be you can enlighten us?
Regarding the letter of City of London, there is no need to explain voting behaviour, still they did. I respect their explanation and decision. My guess is that The Sun asked them for the letter and they send it to them.
If you go to the website of City of London, they put in writing that normally they don't come to general meetings.
Care to explain the last question?
When a shareholder asked in the AGM how Tunku Aziz brings value to shareholders, Tan Teng Boo said Tunku Aziz is one with great integrity.
ReplyDeleteMy questions:
1. Shouldn't the explanation be given by the board instead of Tan Teng Boo who is not a board member?
2. Integrity is very important. I believe each of the board members is man of integrity. But I don't think that alone is sufficient to be a good board member in a close-end fund. Other than integrity, I don't remember Tan Teng Boo (by right should be the board) explained how Tunku brought/brings value to shareholders or how the presence of Tunku makes a difference.
I agree with you, integrity is important, but there are other considerations. For instance, six years of underperformance, six years of a significant discount to NAV, what have the members of the board actively done?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your other comment, TTB is not the board. The separation is essential.
Some interesting stats for you to ponder
ReplyDeleteTotal fees for 2009 is 3,495,212
Total fees for 2010 is 4,037,100
Total fees for 2012 is 5,789,726
Total fees for 2013 is 6,179,782
Total fees for 2014 is 6,218,982
Total fees have increased 2,723,770 since 2009.
In terms of percentage?
That's 77.9%.
How well has icapital performed since 2009?