Lost Login Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Anyone who has had dealings with companies such as these know the difficulties in making an exit and providing an effective value, and recognise that the published sahre prices are at best indicativeWhich is true of most assets. You can get a valuation but the only way to know what it's actually worth is to sell it. Yes, but if assets of the same type are frequently being bought and sold in the same or bigger quantities you have a decent idea that you can realise the valuation. I want to trade £12 million in BP shares there is a fair bet I will be able to sell over a short period and get very near the quoted price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Interesting written answers in Tynwald yesterday disclosing that Cinemanx has earned in excess of £6.3 million in interest with regard to the Govt Media Funds it held. That was question 2. http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/House%20of%20Keys%20Written%20Answers%20240614.pdf Question 5 advises that the Govt's share of Cinemanx's profits are £700K which means that Cinemanx profits were £3.5 million pre this share or £2.8 million post. No wonder Steve Chritian looks smug as presumably he has earned a considerable sum on top of his share of the profits either from remuneration through the company or various production fees charged to the films he or Gasworks are listed as producers of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yes, but if assets of the same type are frequently being bought and sold in the same or bigger quantities you have a decent idea that you can realise the valuation. I want to trade £12 million in BP shares there is a fair bet I will be able to sell over a short period and get very near the quoted price.Right, but these aren't that kind of investment. The entire crux of your issue seems to be that these aren't .FTSE100 style shares. The government has those kinds of investments. This isn't it. They're not going to have the same attributes. They do have risks and benefits that the other investments don't have. It's a diversification. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yes, but if assets of the same type are frequently being bought and sold in the same or bigger quantities you have a decent idea that you can realise the valuation. I want to trade £12 million in BP shares there is a fair bet I will be able to sell over a short period and get very near the quoted price.Right, but these aren't that kind of investment. The entire crux of your issue seems to be that these aren't .FTSE100 style shares. The government has those kinds of investments. This isn't it. They're not going to have the same attributes. They do have risks and benefits that the other investments don't have. It's a diversification. Get over it.So it is entirely wrong to use the price quoted on Aim as a fair indication of the value of the investment, which is what Govt are doing. Secondly I have no problem with diversifying but it should be done by or on the recommendation of professionals and with an eye on the portfolio as a whole not on the whim of one or two unqualified individuals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 So it is entirely wrong to use the price quoted on Aim as a fair indication of the value of the investment, which is what Govt are doing.Are they? I see the Treasury minister responding to questions about the share price when asked. Is it wrong? It's an indication. It might not be as close to what a high volume share would achieve, but that's the nature of the beast. How else do you propose it's valued? Secondly I have no problem with diversifying but it should be done by or on the recommendation of professionals and with an eye on the portfolio as a whole not on the whim of one or two unqualified individuals.Again, you keep comparing it to a managed investment in the stock market. It isn't that. If we wanted it to be, there's ample people who would provide those services. This, as far as I understand it, isn't an investment designed simply to make money. You repeatedly judge it on those grounds, and compare it with other instruments and find it lacking. It will always, as it isn't one of those instruments. It's an attempt to diversify into films while meeting the criticisms and limitations of the original arrangement without entirely giving up on the concept. That you agree or disagree with the goal of the investment is valid. That you expect it to perform in the same way as a traditional vehicle is bollocks. It isn't that. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 So it is entirely wrong to use the price quoted on Aim as a fair indication of the value of the investment, which is what Govt are doing.Are they? I see the Treasury minister responding to questions about the share price when asked. Is it wrong? It's an indication. It might not be as close to what a high volume share would achieve, but that's the nature of the beast. How else do you propose it's valued? S econdly I have no problem with diversifying but it should be done by or on the recommendation of professionals and with an eye on the portfolio as a whole not on the whim of one or two unqualified individuals. Again, you keep comparing it to a managed investment in the stock market. It isn't that. If we wanted it to be, there's ample people who would provide those services. This, as far as I understand it, isn't an investment designed simply to make money. You repeatedly judge it on those grounds, and compare it with other instruments and find it lacking. It will always, as it isn't one of those instruments. It's an attempt to diversify into films while meeting the criticisms and limitations of the original arrangement without entirely giving up on the concept. That you agree or disagree with the goal of the investment is valid. That you expect it to perform in the same way as a traditional vehicle is bollocks. It isn't that. Get over it. It is not an attempt to diversify into films. That is the media fund which is seperate and distinct. We are told there is no link except it was a hedge, which as I have posted I do not think is correct. With regard to the investment are you aggreeable that an unqualified individual who because he has been elected as an MHK and then appointed as a Minister basically can investment in illiquid assets large sums of Government reserves on his own whim. That is basically what the investment is shares is. Teare has stated all along that it was he who did the research, due dilligence etc. I do not believe an individual should be able to do that and I would argue against whatever this had been invested in as it sets a bad precident. The fact that the Minister continually quotes the quoted price as an indication of how well the investment has done, when everybody is aware it would have to be heavily discouted to sell concerns me as in case they see it as justification for what they have done and decide to invest £12million in other UK illiquid shares. Please understand that this is not about the Media fund as I may have a different view on this but it is allegedly totally seperate and distinct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Interesting written answers in Tynwald yesterday disclosing that Cinemanx has earned in excess of £6.3 million in interest with regard to the Govt Media Funds it held. That was question 2. http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/House%20of%20Keys%20Written%20Answers%20240614.pdf Question 5 advises that the Govt's share of Cinemanx's profits are £700K which means that Cinemanx profits were £3.5 million pre this share or £2.8 million post. No wonder Steve Chritian looks smug as presumably he has earned a considerable sum on top of his share of the profits either from remuneration through the company or various production fees charged to the films he or Gasworks are listed as producers of. As far as I can see the media fund has not invested any money in a film production where Steve Christian himself has not been a producer, executive or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It is not an attempt to diversify into films. That is the media fund which is seperate and distinct. We are told there is no link except it was a hedge, which as I have posted I do not think is correct.It clearly is linked to the media fund, given pinewood are the managers and the fund transferred at the same time. A hedge isn't accurate, it looks to me like a complementary deal to extend the benefits. If the UK film industry and pinewood do well, we share in that success. If it doesn't, well our limited exposure limits the loss.With regard to the investment are you aggreeable that an unqualified individual who because he has been elected as an MHK and then appointed as a Minister basically can investment in illiquid assets large sums of Government reserves on his own whim. That is basically what the investment is shares is. Teare has stated all along that it was he who did the research, due dilligence etc. I do not believe an individual should be able to do that and I would argue against whatever this had been invested in as it sets a bad precident.No, but that's not what happened. The members department formulated the deal and he took it to tynwald. It was voted on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Slim It does not matter what you or I think, according to the Treasury Minister it is an investment and it is NOT linked to the Media Fund. It may appear to be but he has categorically stated that it is totally independent. i.e. getting the shares was not dependent on giving Pinewood the Media Fund to manage or that a condition of Managing the Media Fund was that the IoM Govt would invest in shares. The only link that I am aware of is that the Treasury Minister described it as a hedge against what was invested by the Media Fund into films. I am judging and commenting on that basis not putting my own interpretation on whether it is a hedge, I agree with you that it appears to be but the Treasury Minister says it is, or whether it is linked. With regard to the investment I have not looked at Hansard but you appear to be referring to the Media Fund rather than the investment in shares which Teare has stated he did the research and due diligence. I appreciate you think that diversifying into films and the Media Fund are good ideas, however I am referring to the shares which Teare states are an independent investment. It is on that basis I am commenting and I believe that it should be down to professional investment managers to manage Govt funds based on criteria set down by Govt. If they want to invest an percentage Pinewood or whatever based on that criteria then fine. I do not believe it is the Treasury Minister's or Tynwald job to pick stocks and decided to invest £x amount in. That would apply to whether they had invested in Microsoft, Gold, Property Shares etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It does not matter what you or I think, according to the Treasury Minister it is an investment and it is NOT linked to the Media Fund.Where has he said that? In the Pinewood shepparton press release and release to shareholders it links the deals. It does say 'not required' but they are part of the same deal: http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2012-06-06/aTSq395z3ON8.html With regard to the investment I have not looked at Hansard but you appear to be referring to the Media Fund rather than the investment in shares which Teare has stated he did the research and due diligence.He may have done, but he still had to take it to tynwald and tynwald approved the investment. It is not one mans whim as you claim, but a decision that was democratically reached by that court. I appreciate you think that diversifying into films and the Media Fund are good ideas, however I am referring to the shares which Teare states are an independent investment.I don't personally. I've said multiple times in this thread that I think that funding would be better spent on island. I just think you're being unfairly critical on some aspects based on your understanding (or lack of) of the deal, what you think it should be and what it actually is. I don't think we should have ever begun the fat fiddle in the first place, it took the piss, and it's landed us in very hot water. This follow up deal is a more graceful exit in many ways from the original poor plan.It is on that basis I am commenting and I believe that it should be down to professional investment managers to manage Govt funds based on criteria set down by Govt. If they want to invest an percentage Pinewood or whatever based on that criteria then fine. I do not believe it is the Treasury Minister's or Tynwald job to pick stocks and decided to invest £x amount in. That would apply to whether they had invested in Microsoft, Gold, Property Shares etc.And I maintain, you're not talking like for like. If the government wants to invest in agriculture, it doesn't do that with an investment manager either. You're completely on the wrong track in your criticism in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Anyone who has had dealings with companies such as these know the difficulties in making an exit and providing an effective value, and recognise that the published sahre prices are at best indicativeWhich is true of most assets. You can get a valuation but the only way to know what it's actually worth is to sell it. Its not unusual to discount the value of assets when they are illiquid, when calculating capital adequacy for example. Its called prudence - do you work in the finance sector? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Slim I understand the deal, I suggest it is you who do not. The fact that the two transactions are between the same parties and in the same media release does not mean they are linked. By linked I mean for one to proceed it was dependent on the other being approved. It was a matter very clearly set out in I believe the original debates that either transaction could proceed without the other. Teare has made that clear subsequently when questioned on the subject. You may wish to carry on saying they are linked but in my view that is factually wrong unless your view is that what Teare has said is wrong. I agree about the VAT fiddle. With regard to it being one mans whim I maintain that is basically accurate even though I accept it was approved by Tynwald. This was an investment not proposed and recommended by professional investment managers, none of whom appear to want to put money into Pinewood Shepperton. However for the sake of argument I will agree it was not one mans whim but that of the Council of Ministers and with their block vote, Tynwald. Whether one man or Tynwald as a court I do not think that they should be picking and choosing which company or asset to put the Governments reserves in and how much. They do not have the knowledge or the experience. Set a policy and leave it to the professionals. You mentioned an investment in agriculture. I am not aware that the Government has made an invested in agriculture with the intention that the investment will return a profit. In fact I am struggling to think of anything that the Government has in recent years itself specifically chosen to invest in with the intention that it returns a profit, let alone an investment outside the Island. Yes it has purchased land but that is as a land bank for potential use, not with the intention to sell at a future date for a profit. It puts money into industries such as agriculture but again as support. In the past it has had an interest in major local businesses such as the Steam Packet but again that was as much for the ability to control The film fund it self is different and I can see the arguments for it, although I disagree it on several grounds. If structured a different way I may not have been in disagreement. The investment in the shares though, which is allegedly completely separate and independent, I think is unique or at least very rare and I am against as I do not believe that it is for a court of lay person to be making such investment decisions. I appreciate you are as stubborn as I am but even if you continue to disagree that they are not linked as was stated at the outset, for the sake of argument I would be interest to here your opinion of whether you believe it would have been appropriate to invest in the shares in Pinewood if they had not been given the media fund to manage. If you do, do you think it is appropriate for the council of ministers should basically decide amongst themselves to invest £x million in an asset purely as an investment with the view of making a profit? I don't think that what they should be doing, you may think that should be within their remit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillshepherd Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Anyone who has had dealings with companies such as these know the difficulties in making an exit and providing an effective value, and recognise that the published sahre prices are at best indicativeWhich is true of most assets. You can get a valuation but the only way to know what it's actually worth is to sell it. why sell it? looks good to me. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ddb57e2-fd47-11e3-96a9-00144feab7de.html#axzz35pVpBVg7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Anyone who has had dealings with companies such as these know the difficulties in making an exit and providing an effective value, and recognise that the published sahre prices are at best indicativeWhich is true of most assets. You can get a valuation but the only way to know what it's actually worth is to sell it. why sell it? looks good to me. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ddb57e2-fd47-11e3-96a9-00144feab7de.html#axzz35pVpBVg7 I wasn't suggesting that it be held or sold, I was just making the point that in a thinly traded share, market prices are at best indicative! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Anyone who has had dealings with companies such as these know the difficulties in making an exit and providing an effective value, and recognise that the published sahre prices are at best indicativeWhich is true of most assets. You can get a valuation but the only way to know what it's actually worth is to sell it. why sell it? looks good to me. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ddb57e2-fd47-11e3-96a9-00144feab7de.html#axzz35pVpBVg7 I wasn't suggesting that it be held or sold, I was just making the point that in a thinly traded share, market prices are at best indicative! Paper profit is all very well...... but it's cash in the bank that counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.