Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

A & GA Prefs

Gilts, bonds, and interest-bearing shares
88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#128765

Postby 88V8 » March 29th, 2018, 10:10 am

The FCA are past masters when it comes to inaction.

The simple answer to Dodd's question is of course that Aviva thought it could deviously retire the debt on the cheap.

Prices have not quite returned to their pre-kerfuffle level. So there is residual concern that other issuers could seek to crawl through similar slimey holes.

I took the opportunity to top up with Aviva and GA prefs while all this was going on, and atm I am not unhappy. But if I added up my overall exposure to Financials, I should be unhappy. So I'll refrain from adding it up :)

V8

OwenSwansea
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 117
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 9:51 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#128781

Postby OwenSwansea » March 29th, 2018, 11:21 am

Andrew Bailey should consider his position, he is clearly unfit to be head of the Financial Conduct Authority.

OwenSwansea
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 117
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 9:51 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#128814

Postby OwenSwansea » March 29th, 2018, 1:20 pm

It has crossed my mind, is GoSeigen and Andrew Bailey the same person?

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#128860

Postby Itsallaguess » March 29th, 2018, 3:54 pm

OwenSwansea wrote:
It has crossed my mind, is GoSeigen and Andrew Bailey the same person?


Moderator Message:
I think there's been quite enough posts like this, being really quite personal, so can you please stop it?

Itsallaguess

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2829
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 1029 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129390

Postby Wizard » April 1st, 2018, 11:25 pm

Sadly it appears GoSeigen has been driven away. A real loss to LemonFool IMHO, as his perspective was well informed and interesting.

OwenSwansea
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 117
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 9:51 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129406

Postby OwenSwansea » April 2nd, 2018, 8:51 am

Wizard wrote:Sadly it appears GoSeigen has been driven away. A real loss to LemonFool IMHO, as his perspective was well informed and interesting.


Moderator Message:
Offensive comment removed.

TJH

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129408

Postby PeterGray » April 2nd, 2018, 9:04 am

Owen,

Please can you stop these pointless, unjustified and ridiculous personal attacks on someone who says things you don't like to hear. You just reduce the value of forum like this for those who want to discuss issues - which is what they are here for.

What is the point of a discussion forum, and how does it help make useful investment decisions if people who say things that are uncomfortable, or which you don't like to hear, are abused and discouraged from posting? Making good decisions requires considering all sides of an argument and making your own decision on the best way forward. If you exclude anyone who doesn't say what you want to hear your investment decisions are unlikely to be good ones.

Peter

OwenSwansea
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 117
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 9:51 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129544

Postby OwenSwansea » April 2nd, 2018, 4:57 pm

PeterGray wrote:Owen,

Please can you stop these pointless, unjustified and ridiculous personal attacks on someone who says things you don't like to hear. You just reduce the value of forum like this for those who want to discuss issues - which is what they are here for.

What is the point of a discussion forum, and how does it help make useful investment decisions if people who say things that are uncomfortable, or which you don't like to hear, are abused and discouraged from posting? Making good decisions requires considering all sides of an argument and making your own decision on the best way forward. If you exclude anyone who doesn't say what you want to hear your investment decisions are unlikely to be good ones.

Peter


Peter,
There is merit in what you write, and I must try and contain myself from now on.
Moderator Message:
Reference to other posters removed. Please see PM sent to you earlier. Final warning now. Clariman


Owen

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129571

Postby johnhemming » April 2nd, 2018, 6:47 pm

Can I endorse what the moderators say. It really doesn't help when people are abusive towards those that they disagree with.

Kr1ck
Posts: 40
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 3:55 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129599

Postby Kr1ck » April 2nd, 2018, 9:52 pm

For those of us with longer memories, GoSeign was one of the most knowledgeable and welcome posters at the old Motley Fool Banking board. I cannot understand those who seek to shoot the messenger. Has the duplicity of the FCA, the sagas of the Bank of Ireland, Coop Bank and Lloyds ECN's taught us nothing? Moral outrage is all well and good but that cuts no ice in a court of law. Do our opponents have an arguable legal case? Now that, I want to know and I thank GoSeign for his valuable contributions, not only on Aviva but numerous other issues over the years.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129603

Postby Alaric » April 2nd, 2018, 10:14 pm

Kr1ck wrote: Do our opponents have an arguable legal case?


To my mind the key points where whether it was intended at the time of the original agreement that Aviva and others were given an option to repay their borrowings at par if interest rates were to fall. To my mind that was certainly "no" and someone who claimed or appeared to understood the fixed income market should have appreciated this. The other key point was whether the requirement of the Companies Acts to hold a vote of shareholders to initiate a capital return required separate votes to be held if there were multiple classes of shareholder. Some clever dick lawyers seemed to argue that it didn't despite this riding a coach and horses through what had been presumed market and legal practice.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2829
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 1029 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129619

Postby Wizard » April 3rd, 2018, 8:06 am

Alaric wrote:
Kr1ck wrote: Do our opponents have an arguable legal case?


To my mind the key points where whether it was intended at the time of the original agreement that Aviva and others were given an option to repay their borrowings at par if interest rates were to fall. To my mind that was certainly "no" and someone who claimed or appeared to understood the fixed income market should have appreciated this. The other key point was whether the requirement of the Companies Acts to hold a vote of shareholders to initiate a capital return required separate votes to be held if there were multiple classes of shareholder. Some clever dick lawyers seemed to argue that it didn't despite this riding a coach and horses through what had been presumed market and legal practice.

But for the Aviva shares that raises the question of why were preference shareholders given the 4 votes per share, at the time enough to outvote ordinary shareholders? If not to protect from having capital return forced on them then for what purpose? If it was to protect preference shareholders from unwanted capital return then the issuance of more ordinary shares without any adjustment to voting would seem to have changed the terms of the preference shares.

But AFAIK this question is unique to Aviva.

Terry.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129621

Postby johnhemming » April 3rd, 2018, 8:15 am

Wizard wrote:But AFAIK this question is unique to Aviva.

That issue also raises a question as to whether the Aviva prefs were given a class vote on the issuing of more ordinary shares as that changed the ability of the prefs to block decisions by the ordinary shares. It is now academic, but a worthwhile issue.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129622

Postby Alaric » April 3rd, 2018, 8:17 am

Wizard wrote:But for the Aviva shares that raises the question of why were preference shareholders given the 4 votes per share, at the time enough to outvote ordinary shareholders?


If it had come to Court perhaps witnesses to the original design of the fund raising would have testified as to the original intent of the parties. Were the Pref holders relying solely on those voting rights as a protection against a forced return of capital? It's known that there were intended to be clauses to prevent unilateral return of capital as otherwise the Ordinary Shareholders could pocket the funds just supplied and leave the Pref holders with a Company unable to pay Pref dividends.

The other interpretation is that it was purely technical as the Prefs were nominal 25p and the Ordinaries nominal £ 1 and that if the Prefs were ever called on to vote, it would be as a separate class. If otherwise, then as indicated, the Prefs should have been required to approve each and every increase in capital or been given additional votes to protect their rights if the Companies Acts failed to do so.

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129630

Postby PeterGray » April 3rd, 2018, 9:17 am

Alaric wrote:
Kr1ck wrote: Do our opponents have an arguable legal case?


To my mind the key points where whether it was intended at the time of the original agreement that Aviva and others were given an option to repay their borrowings at par if interest rates were to fall. To my mind that was certainly "no" and someone who claimed or appeared to understood the fixed income market should have appreciated this. The other key point was whether the requirement of the Companies Acts to hold a vote of shareholders to initiate a capital return required separate votes to be held if there were multiple classes of shareholder. Some clever dick lawyers seemed to argue that it didn't despite this riding a coach and horses through what had been presumed market and legal practice.


While I agree with that, I think we also have to be aware that it's clear that an opinion that allowed cancellation at par was given, and the Aviva board were prepared to back it. They must have had legal opinion that they felt justified their proposed actions or they would never have made the statements they did. They may have been legal arguments that would have had a low chance of success, and they may even have been aware of that, but I don't think think there's any doubt that they felt they could argue a case in court to support what they proposed. And once you get there the outcome is always going to be uncertain and expensive.

Peter

Holts
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 123
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:28 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129642

Postby Holts » April 3rd, 2018, 10:23 am

johnhemming wrote:Can I endorse what the moderators say. It really doesn't help when people are abusive towards those that they disagree with.



Seconded , I am surprised to see such here , I do not recall it at all on the old fool board , it is not necessary , its helpful too see the arguments from both viewpoints .

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2829
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 1029 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#129748

Postby Wizard » April 3rd, 2018, 5:07 pm

Alaric wrote:If it had come to Court perhaps witnesses to the original design of the fund raising would have testified as to the original intent of the parties. Were the Pref holders relying solely on those voting rights as a protection against a forced return of capital? It's known that there were intended to be clauses to prevent unilateral return of capital as otherwise the Ordinary Shareholders could pocket the funds just supplied and leave the Pref holders with a Company unable to pay Pref dividends.

The other interpretation is that it was purely technical as the Prefs were nominal 25p and the Ordinaries nominal £ 1 and that if the Prefs were ever called on to vote, it would be as a separate class. If otherwise, then as indicated, the Prefs should have been required to approve each and every increase in capital or been given additional votes to protect their rights if the Companies Acts failed to do so.

I appreciate that this is, at least at the moment, somewhat academic when it comes to the Aviva preference shares. The reason I am interested is because of the possible read through to other preference shares, if Aviva felt it necessary to put in place the 4 votes mechanism to protect holders because at the time it was understood that there was no protection under company law then what does that say for other preference shares where there was never a similar mechanism in place?

Trouble is I suspect nobody likely to contribute to this discussion will know the answer.

Terry.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: A & GA Prefs

#131519

Postby johnhemming » April 11th, 2018, 7:00 pm

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clos ... -t2zf96xvq

reasonable use from The Times wrote:A group of City institutions that fought Aviva over its plans to redeem £450 million of preference shares without paying a premium has asked the government to close a legal loophole to prevent other companies doing the same.

M&G Prudential, Invesco, GAM, Blackrock, Edentree and Legal & General wrote to John Glen, economic secretary to the Treasury, yesterday calling for the Companies Act to be changed to end uncertainty over the millions of pounds of outstanding preference shares in circulation.


This may be what was behind a (small) jump in pref prices today.


Return to “Gilts and Bonds”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests