This is from ramamba's post on the CGA thread....

This is from ramamba's post on the CGA thread.

https://hotcopper.com.au/search/search?type=post&users=ramamba

Here is the original AFR article that ramamba refers to. http://www.copyright link/business/...oubouras-charts-retail-course-20171029-gzapvv

Inter alia, Switzer is quoted as referring to : "the sale of [Contango MicroCap]"

Well that's a Freudian slip if ever there was one.

Contango Microcap (CTN) was never CGA's to sell.

Presumably what the article is actually referring to is that CGA have assigned to Naos the rights to manage CTN's funds on a long term lease.

But the right to manage CTN's funds wasn't CGA's to lease out either, or at least it shouldn't be.
The only way CGA could enter into that arrangement with Naos with a straight face is if CGA was confident that they had the CTN directors in their pocket.

Why did the CTN directors acquiesce to the transfer of the management of CTN funds to Naos?
The words egregious disregard of director's duties spring to my mind.

Naos can probably manage CTN's funds better than CGA, but given CGA's recent performance, that is a very low bar.

Why Naos? Why not some other investment manager?
Where was the due diligence on the part of the CTN board in the selection of investment manager?

WTF do the CTN directors think they are there for? To be CGA's hand maidens?

CTN directors are not there to serve the interests of CGA .

cheers

These are my opinions only. Nothing that I have written here should be construed as disparagement of any of the parties or entities involved. For all I know, all of the parties and entities may be completely convinced of the correctness of their actions and be acting from the highest possible motives with all due skill and care in accord with their various responsibilities and obligations. Any figures and facts are mentioned in good faith but I accept no responsibility for their accuracy.