Ramanba
Good points
[ Not imagining that anything improper has actually happened or was deliberately done to hurt anyone!]
But did you notice that NAOS already think they run CTN - not just as CTN's service provider as Fund Manager. But just like the last Fund Manager - CGA and particularly GB. They "ran" the "group" , and these LIC's are our "babies". Understand in the trade sometimes called "ATM's". And of course, our "friendly brokers and advisers" also have full access to our "babies"
Answered a question today re the CTN Notes stating "We will consider what we will be doing with them". The telephone call was for a Fund Manager call. The portfolio they purport to manage has NO Notes They are a liability of CTN. Only the Board of CTN should be commenting - after the Board has decided what to do, or NOT do with them. Totally out of order to make the comment
Would have thought that similarly what CTN roadshows are to be run are not NAOS' decision?
But clearly, the MD/ CEO of NAOS believed the CTN Board is irrelevant - and given their actions of the last 3 weeks - maybe this is one correct assumption
If NAOS are such great managers, with such concentrated portfolios, why was the top executive not more frank, and up to the mark, on a clear non performer that must be circa 10% of the NCC portfolio
Stated NAOS does not hold ANY CGA scrip - only the NCC shareholders. Interesting NCC does not appear to have advised ASX ( nor its own shareholders ) that NCC has over 14% of CGA
Cost close to $1 per share - down yesterday to 61c. As a successful fund manager, one would think the easiest analysis of all would be of a similar small fund manager. At launch,, CGA had very grand announced expansion ideas - the next Magellan some said - a small +Ve P&L and cash flow. The detailed regular meetings ( stressed this am ) with management would have seen expenditure booming, and modest growth And the ASX 4C in both Jan and April clearly flagged a potential problem at CGA, without more capital support
But NAOS only invest in "good, solid" cash flow businesses. And later, NCC appears to have nearly trebled its exposure, including it appears in the CGA Sept raising - when ASX was by then asking serious questions about cash flows. And CGA 's 2nd largest client ( after CTN ) had apparently withdrawn with reduction of cash flow by some $700,000 pa.
Not really in line with the stated NAOS investment PRINCIPLES? And then telling listeners the stock was recovering at 83c - it was at a high of 71c at that moment! Not quite on top of your 20 stocks as much as we were asked to accept!
Why and How did the CTN Board conclude that their 6000 investors wanted a totally different MORE RISKY portfolio to the one in which they had invested. Somewhat presumptuous without any enquiry and due diligence. And with basically all information coming from CGA and NAOS, one can assume perhaps that the Board believed these were the people they reported to?
As posted previously, the Board should have been pro-active much earlier about the disastrous returns sine Day 1 of CGA 's IMA. ( bottom quartile ). Certainly from April the new CTN Board should have been on high alert, and serious questioning started. Why did CTN allow CGA to purport that they had the right to deal with the contract their way, and with a potential $12m reward; and then have the portfolio moved to a totally different investment objective and risk - from what shareholders had opted for!
"We Directors know better than the investors what they want. ?"
The problem for CTN was the continuing poor performance! This solution maybe saves other parties? What should have happened?
Any half decent Board would have accepted CGA's published words of incompetence, done a review of other Lower Risk Micro managers, and acted for once in last 7 months ONLY in Shareholders' interests - to appoint competent experienced Micro manager(s)
Odd to reminisce? Wasn't that what the previous Board did between Dec 16 and April this year. Found a better performing manager, after a review - that manager did easily outperform ( and are still ). But CTN's new Board got rid of them at shareholders' expense!
Great strategy. So the Current Board and interested parties sent them to "Coventry"
Current Directors should look for the life rafts
DYOR
Expand
(20min delay)
