Ann: Net Tangible Asset Backing, page-41

The argument with HHV from Wilson went something like this I thought. Because of the departure of Peter Hall, the LIC was then very different from how it used to be, so the fair thing was to provide a liquidity event for HHV holders to exit near NTA. This could mean HHV shareholders could exit the way investors could choose to exit from Hunter Hall unlisted investments I.e. at near NTA.


Here we have ALF arguably being run in an extremely different fashion to just a few years ago. They are always running zero net exposure, now playing with overseas stocks & lots of different staff that haven’t turned things around. In the same period the market is confused by who is in charge of what areas, and the subtle differences between ALF, WMK & WGF.


Is there not the same case for it only being fair shareholders can exit near NTA, just like investors can in Watermark’s unlisted products?


Seems only fair like @risk41 has pointed out that at a minimum a huge off market buyback is proposed soon. Geoff Wilson is on the board here so maybe he sees this situation quite different. Another board member I think is John Abernethy, who is still with CAM by the way. The shareholder return figures of CAM I would argue would be considered less than successful. CAM to their credit are skilful in issuing new shares, hybrids and bonus shares.