If TTB wants to maintain the integrity in managing ICAP by owning non or small ownership in ICAP, then ICAP may be facing more challenging in future.

There are pros and cons for the managing person(s) to own the company shares. But once the company becomes a cash rich cow or NTA is greater than its market price, then it has a possibility of take over by the certain groups.

Assume Laxey Partner continues to buy in a nearby future due to market price is below NTA and up to a point where Laxey Partner controlling over 50% of ownership, then a situation will be awkward where the control of co is in one party whereas the TTB is managing the company as he has the support from the substantial number of minority shareholders since the resolution of AGM is control by chairman who determine the election is by poll.

The reported recent NAV of 2.96 is inclusive of cash it is holding?

My wild guess is, it may drop back to the price of 2.25 before recent surge triggered by speculation of early liquidity.

Yes, inclusive.
Based on latest Q report,
it has 130+ million cash, so translate about near Rm1.00 cash per share.

---

Added on November 12, 2012, 12:59 pmYes, own little share, then it rely on others or major shareholder wish already to decide the company/fund future.

I see more pros then cons.
Just like WB with BH.
Investors may feel more confidence as they may view we are in the same boat, and having same interest.

The major shareholder can demand the resolution voted by shareholding as well, which is the basic and ultimate, (as if vote according to shares, it takes considerably long process to verify and count, so most AGM are done simply by vote of hand/shareholder present).

But Laxey even emerged as major shareholder, it is not holding more than 1/3, so they need other minority shareholders support as well.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Nov 12 2012, 04:45 PM

So iCap can't give 5 sen/share dividend?

No, iCap can give up to RM1/share cash dividend but it chooses not to.

Initially TTB only managed discretionary personal fund accounts for wealthy investors. If you don't have millions of wealth, don't bother to call TTB to manage funds for you.

However there are a lot retail investors believe TTB can deliver good return for them, so they strongly requested TTB to help them pool funds up to RM100 million so it's economy of scale for TTB to manage the fund for retail investors. Eventually TTB decided to lend one of his company, CDAM's brand 'iCap' to setup this ICAP fund. And the IPO shares of ICAP was overwhelmed with demand, so TTB decided to raise the initial fund size from RM100 million to RM140 million.

If TTB own shares and eventually becomes the largest shareholder in ICAP, he is competing with other retail investors for the 140 million shares and this just defeat the purpose of setting up this fund for sake of managing fund for retail investors. Of course, the disadvantage for him not being the controlling shareholder in ICAP is the recent incident happened recently that the fund is vulnerable to be controlled by investors with a short-term agenda to rap-up the fund for short term benefit.

However, please remember that this fund was setup at the purpose for long term value investing. If the investors cannot commit for long term and eventually sell their shares to short-term vulture funds, these are their calls for an end for this fund and TTB has no responsibility over this decision made by the majority shareholders who sway from their objectives. As a man with principle, I agree TTB should resign if any short-term investors are able to appoint any directors into the Board of ICAP.

This post has been edited by kinwing: Nov 16 2012, 09:30 AM

I have a suggestion, right issue or private placement at NAV by then can raise the fund to 150 to 200 million, Fund has extra cash for long term investing, while T can subscribe those private placement or right issue as well, in return has more stake.
Benefit
1. Has better control stake, prevent vulture short term investor to have bigger say.
2. Fund has extra cash and fund to maneuver, more cash can invest better and more.
3. Within the same boat with minority shareholder, aka raise investors confidence towards the fund, which may lure more buyer in, eventually may close the gap between share price vs NAV.

The thing is TTB may not be that rich .

How come?

If he claims to the Msian WB, he should be stinking rich by now?

Until the recent takeover bid by Laxey, TTB was more concerned about managers' fees than stake. After all, the stock was traded at discount to the NAV, and investors were never paid dividend. In a sense, TTB was 99% manager, and 1% owner.

But he may have changed his mind now. Let's see

Exactly! Thats was the complain i had about this.
TTB would make his exorbitant fees irrespective of how he performed.
Of course that could be said of most funds!

Maybe your fantasy imagination makes yourself to think that seems everyone is listening to what you said but the result of the vote told otherwise. So what your said had no weight in the ICAP's AGM meeting. LOL

I am waiting for the fund to liquidate in 8 years and get NAV at a CAGR of 18%. So I don't give a damn on dividend distribution nor discount. Indeed, I can take advantage on the discount and make an even greater return than what TTB has made when the fund liquidates.

No, in my guess TTB won't change his mind, it is a matter of principle.

What fantasy imgination are you on about? i dont dwell on majority concensus. Majority consensus does not drive me.
it may do for people who are driven by sheep mentality or who those who have no capability to think for themselves....... :

If you wanna majority sheeple mentality, think


http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysi...ays-bank-negara

i guess they are ALL right!

No, I am not saying you are driven by majority consensus, I said your imagination is trying to drive the majority consensus, but it was found too weak and not convincing to affect the majority.

What sheep mentality? Are you sheep so giving sheep logic? Not paying dividend does not equate scam that to lead sheeple mentality but a choice. Just like people who choose to eat something or not to eat, it is a choice. And you have no ground to label choices that made by investors/consumers are sheeple mentality because they do not agree to your 'imagination'. Truth is always there regardless of how you labelling it as 'sheep' or not 'sheep'.

Btw, Genneva is not ALL right but ICAP is. At least ICAP is not raided by BNM. So this is another fantasy imagination. LOL

You STILL dont get it do YOU?

First i am not trying to drive up anything OR affect anyone.

Next, the majority at your Agm does not move me one bit about the exorbitant fees.

Next, Its nothing to do with a scam or not......its all about your AGM majoority mentality. 60,000 consented
to a scam. Does it make their mentality RIGHT?

You are right about choices. Some Sheeple choose to be stupid.

---

Added on November 16, 2012, 1:43 pmTan Teng Boo made the following statement during the last AGM saga.
“My 18% growth which I have built up may be gone. Our NAV has gained 189% since listing or 18% per annum. At such a rate, in seven years time, it would be RM8.78. We give consistent long-term returns,”



how many people go deeper to analyze if TTB has really have done such a fantastic job for its shareholders as professed through the hero worshipping of shareholders and the ultra arrogant behaviour of TTB against the very people who employ and pay him his fees?

For the SHEEPle............

The gain of 18% pa of icap’s NAV over the 7 years period from inception to now (October 30 2012) outperformed KLCI of 12.0% (including dividend) by a wide margin of 4.8%. However, a closer look at its performance shows that all the outperformance was achieved in the initial period from inception up to 3 January 2008, when its NAV improved by 126% compared to 60% of KLCI.

Soon after that, in tandem with the decline of the world markets and KLCI, Icap’s NAV declined to its lowest at RM1.42 on 31st October 2008. After that NAV increased steadily again to RM2.96 on 2nd November 2012. However since the peak NAV on 3rd January 2008, the CAGR of icap NAV is only 5.9%, closely follows the total return of KLCI of 6%. Even from the low of the market on 5th March 2009, CAGR of NAV of icap to 2nd November 2012 of 21% doesn’t match up with the total return of KLCI of 22% per year. Where was the Sage TTB during this period? Was it just a temporary phenomenon happened by some luck factor in the early days?



Next, in terms of share price performance, Icap’s return of 12.6% per year for the entire period is not much better than that of the return of the market of about 12.0%. For those who bought athe peak price in 2008.....ahem....you have yet to see the price back at its High.. The share price on 2nd November 2012 is 10% below then, or at a loss of 2% pa. During the same period, return of KLCI was 6% a year. This means the share price of icap underperformed the market by huge 8% per year.
Lets just say you were smarrt enough to have bought at the low price of Rm1.46. Your CAGR to date will be around 14%, no way near 18%! For the present price of Rm2.4 to get to TTB's holy grail of Rm8.78 in 7 years will require ........a CAGR............................drum roll...........oif...................................... 20.4% !!!!




So Can TTB be so cocksure of what he said above that the return is consistent, and that could continue to increase NAV consistently at 18% pa for the next 7 years for Icap share price to be RM8.78 in October 2019?

This post has been edited by prophetjul: Nov 16 2012, 02:01 PM

What made you so difficult about ICAP?
It is normal to for some years to yield better than other years.
If u are not happy with TTB, management fee and ICAP performance, just leave this counter.

This post has been edited by Denis: Nov 16 2012, 02:10 PM

is it wrong to discuss?
Is this not a forum?
OR are you in the worng place?

I m not in the wrong place but u are have typo in worng word!

You complain about the high management fee.
If u are not happy with the fee charges by Capital Dynamic, then don't buy ICAP.

You are not happy with the ICAP performance.
Then, leave ICAP.

IS your discussion can help to reduce the management fee OR increase the fund performance.

You don't like this apple, then don't buy lor!
What for make nonsense argument!
Get it.

No, it's your concern about the exorbitant fees but I am looking at a bigger amount in long run which is well over to cover the fees by many times. So it's mutual opinion not only we are sheeple but you too.

If you are judging the fund base on the lower return happen these recent years and ignoring the out-performance that, so you are ignorance about fund management and have no idea what is Global Investment Performance Standard (GIPS) on how to judge a fund's performance base on their return since inception.

From a fund management point of view, we always look at the return since inception. While fund might perform well, it will always face trough period some other time and its performance may not up to market. However, it will eventually pick up base on the how consistent of the fund manager. As I have mentioned before, if ICAP has performed 50% better than you in the previous years, it will always be better than you even if you are outperfomring ICAP by 3% every year in the next 10 years. So it's you not getting it.

You also try to belittle the performance of ICAP base on share price, not its NAV is another joke. By the way, you are also so unintelligent to assume that investors will buy at ICAP at a very high price and eventually hold the share until today so they are making bad return in terms of share price, but you never consider if I am buying at discount and wait till I can get back NAV in 8 years later, I'll get a return that would even better than the return of CAGR 18% by the fund manager. No wonder you can't make money from simple investment like ICAP. HAHA:D, I just want to laugh at your face.

This post has been edited by kinwing: Nov 16 2012, 02:25 PM