Well I just read 29 pages so might as well add my 2c DYOR and...

Well I just read 29 pages so might as well add my 2c

DYOR and don't make a decision based on my comments which may be based on incorrect information etc etc yada yada

The Sandon comment:
I said that because I googled one directors name and noticed he was a recommendation in a company Sandon was activisting in. Having now just read the EGM letter to shareholders I would expect he is a recommendation from CGA or the stock brokers to CGA, who are probably the same as Sandon used. Ergo there is probably no actual Sandon link

Name Change:
Don't care. Just perform. Not going to get 75% so not going to happen . Next

Investment Manager:
Ouch. That was one damning letter. I couldn't believe how bad the performance has been on a relative basis. Here is a funds manager performance table someone on another site posted you can see how they perform
http://www.morningstar.com.au/s/documents/InstitutionalSectorSurvey_201612.pdf
Go to page 4 I never knew they were that bad. Never mind the $27m....can we call an EGM to take all of the money away from CGA?


Quality of proposed New Directors
Laughable. The letter was frightening as to their (non) experience with LICs. If they wanted to roll the board to ensure they will always keep all of CTNs money with CGA they should have at least offered some directors who have LIC experience. Foot, gun, shoot

Unhappy Shareholders:
Well, after reading all 29 pages I think all shareholders will be "unhappy". I'd be hardly surprised if another EGM was called to roll the other 2 directors and the investment manager.

Letter sent to some shareholders
I think it is lousy that only some shareholders received a letter. I am not a big shareholder (sub 15,000 shares) but the existing board have always made me feel egalitarian. I get that these guys are just shoring up votes and sending letters is not cheap, but to me this (in)action demonstrates their sincerity to all of the shareholders.

My take on what is this all about?
Business risk to CGA: Not getting that $27m was a massive blow to CGA and made it clear that the security of the other $200m remaining at the end of the 3 years is tenuous at best- seeing that CGA needs to turn their performance inside out so CTN don't take their $200m away .
CGA has a market cap of $60m. It looks like its running at major loss too so I have no idea how it is worth $60m but it is what it is. However

How tenuous are CGAs cash flows? (going by the most recent 4C)

Cash in Bank: $960k
Q1 2017 expected spend: $2.179m (salaries alone exceed cash at bank and likely revenue!)
Q4 2016 Revenue: $759k

Looking at these numbers I can't see how CGA is a viable manager unless it picks up new clients very quickly. But looking at those tables their Australian Equity, Small Cap and Microcap funds are feather dusters so who would give them any money?

The other thing is they will have to raise money to stay afloat. Unless they raise money I don't see how they will cover payroll in March, probably an overdraft I guess

Here is my back of napkin cash flow for the quarter

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4	Column 5
0	$k	IN	OUT	Shortfall	Cash at end
1	Jan	253	726	-473	487
2	Feb	253	726	-473	14
3	March	253	726	-473	-459

For a $60m investment manager that listed and raised $4m cash in the IPO to be on the verge of a mathematical insolvency not 5 months after IPO is unacceptable

Back up Manager in case CGA goes under
I have very real concerns that this manager will either drastically do a head cut or just not be around. In this instance I want a board as independent as possible, that is prepared to pull the money and give it to an alternate manager

SUMMARY
A threat to the contract with CTN is a threat to CGA. I agree that replacing this board with these directors is not in the best interest of CTN shareholders

And now ...................