# PCG - Pengana Capital Group



## Sean K (27 November 2008)

Hunter Hall International Ltd (HHL) operates an investment management business which manages Australia's largest ethical investment trust, the Hunter Hall Value Growth Trust, as well as the Global Ethical Trust, the Australian Value Trust, the International Equities Fund and Hunter Hall Global Value Ltd (ASX code HHV), a listed investment company.


I had some money in the VGT a while ago but dumped all my managed funds in Jan. 

I imagine all the funds are performing poorly at the moment, but not sure if they're outperforming the market or not.

One thing for certain, the market is factoring in a major reduction in their dividend.

Current pe is 6.6 and dividend is 14%!!

Fugly chart. 

I wonder if this will be a turn around story at the other end of the recession/depression, or it's bound for the sin bin?


----------



## So_Cynical (4 August 2010)

*Re: HHL - Hunter Hall Limited*



kennas said:


> I wonder if this will be a turn around story at the other end of the recession/depression, or it's bound for the sin bin?




Well the world didn't end and HHL bottomed like everything else and came good like almost everything else...Hunter Hall suffered a big reduction in FUM during the GFC and cut there dividend by about half the pre GFC amount while still maintaining there 5% pre tax profit charitable donation policy.

I don't want to come off all charitable and ethical etc...i brought HHL today cos i like there business, and there SP was trading close to a post GFC low and if the dividend holds its a 11.5% gross yield, and if the divi takes a little cut it could still end up paying over 10% gross.

For an ethical investment fund manager most of HHL's funds have actually performed quiet well..so i brought a few at today's low of $5.29 (about 20% of today's volume ) and my second fund manager, love these closely held stocks....my chart takes off close to where the chart posted by Kennas ends.

http://www.hunterhall.com.au/
~


----------



## So_Cynical (19 January 2011)

*Re: HHL - Hunter Hall Limited*

HHL has announced a capital return/return of capital :dunno: probably at around 20 CPS with the ex date and details to come...see today's ann

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20110119/pdf/41w7yjdrqnzxfw.pdf



So_Cynical said:


> (4th-August-2010) i brought a few at today's low of $5.29 (about 20% of today's volume ) and my second fund manager.




And that return of capital announcement was responsible for today share price jump of 3% which was just enough to get my 3 week old sell order filled at $5.77 giving me winning trade number 44  and a profit of 79.1 CPS (14.9%) gross, including the last dividend and franking credits.

As per my "retirement in paradise" plan...kept the profit in and matched it with a similar amount of capital as a long term hold and dividend, franking credit stream...will build into the position at the next significant dip.


----------



## So_Cynical (3 March 2012)

I entered HHL late last week @ 3.99 ~ my second entry, this time at a price significantly lower than last time....no big deal as the shares im holding from my first entry are 60% free carried anyway and the yield is still ok even with the reduced dividend.

HHL is a good fund manager, FUM will increase at some point in time and on the back of that so to will the SP and dividends...one day.

-----------------

Money is made looking forward not back.


----------



## clinta44 (27 March 2012)

kennas said:


> I had some money in the VGT a while ago but dumped all my managed funds in Jan.




How did you find the return in the VGT fund verses the return in the shares?


----------



## robusta (23 November 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> HHL is a good fund manager, FUM will increase at some point in time and on the back of that so to will the SP and dividends...one day.
> 
> -----------------
> 
> Money is made looking forward not back.




I could not agree more, that is why I bought some today.


----------



## Ves (23 November 2012)

robusta said:


> I could not agree more, that is why I bought some today.



Just remember the events of the last two decades (lots of surplus funds were piled into our markets via managed funds) may not be repeatable.  It was a pretty big bull market on the ASX until 2007.


----------



## robusta (23 November 2012)

Ves said:


> Just remember the events of the last two decades (lots of surplus funds were piled into our markets via managed funds) may not be repeatable.  It was a pretty big bull market on the ASX until 2007.




Yeah it was, I imagine there will be a lot of smaller bull and bear markets in the future.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 November 2012)

Ves said:


> Just remember the events of the last two decades (lots of surplus funds were piled into our markets via managed funds) *may not be repeatable.*  It was a pretty big bull market on the ASX until 2007.




The next bull wont be exactly the same...but to suggest that there will never be another bull, that the world will never be awash with money looking for a home, that people wont get rich by borrowing money to buy stuff in order to sell it to someone else who has borrowed more money.

Its the only game in town...and the new players at the table are Asians.


----------



## Boggo (23 November 2012)

Ves said:


> Just remember the events of the last two decades (lots of surplus funds were piled into our markets via managed funds) may not be repeatable. * It was a pretty big bull market on the ASX until 2007.*




I remember those glory days of buy, hold and forget.
Similiar results are available nowadays, just got to work a bit harder with a more hands on approach.

_Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change._
_Stephen Hawking_

XAO Weekly - click to expand.


----------



## robusta (5 December 2012)

Call me crazy (there are plenty that do) but I read this;

http://afr.com/p/personal_finance/portfolio/deverall_got_devil_of_day_job_QTWZV0Kn8b8yIpbLHwJjMO

and I hope for the price to fall further so I can buy some more.


----------



## tech/a (5 December 2012)

Robusta
I've had a read.
It tells me HHL is going to alter what it currently does.
There is no telling how it's going to perform.

Why keep buying something on it's way down which hasn't been proven and doesn't look
Like coming good for years?

It's just buy and hope?


----------



## So_Cynical (5 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> Robusta
> I've had a read.
> It tells me HHL is going to alter what it currently does.
> There is no telling how it's going to perform.
> ...




tech i would be interested in your answers to a "what if" question.

Lets say you have access to a time machine and can go back up to 5 years in time twice to buy/sell HHL..what month and year would you choose to buy? also please nominate the month and year you would sell.

Thanks in advance for indulging me...5 year chart below.
~


----------



## robusta (5 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> Robusta
> I've had a read.
> It tells me HHL is going to alter what it currently does.
> There is no telling how it's going to perform.
> ...




HHL are not going to alter what they are doing, they are just adding a couple of new funds.

The long term performance of the flagship fund, the investment style, and the companies they hold give me confidence HHL will perform well at some point in the future.
I guess the main question that is vexing you tech is why do I buy something when the price is falling? Well the answer is I have no idea nor do I much care what the price does over the next six months. The market is allways looking forward, investment returns might improve dividends hungry investors may snap up shares or more of the same and the share price might fall another 20%. I don't know what will happen, do you?
One thing I am reasonably confident about is HHL will provide a positive return at some point in the future.


----------



## tech/a (6 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> tech i would be interested in your answers to a "what if" question.
> 
> Lets say you have access to a time machine and can go back up to 5 years in time twice to buy/sell HHL..what month and year would you choose to buy? also please nominate the month and year you would sell.
> 
> ...




Ill mark up a chart and explain.
Also reply to Robusta.


----------



## tech/a (6 December 2012)

> I guess the main question that is vexing you tech is why do I buy something when the price is falling? Well the answer is I have no idea nor do I much care what the price does over the next six months. The market is always looking forward, investment returns might improve dividends hungry investors may snap up shares or more of the same and the share price might fall another 20%. I don't know what will happen, do you?




I can definitely tell its not turning for any appreciable return.
Having said that.
Right now if you were a punter there is a low risk entry opportunity (Technically)
I've marked it on the chart 

Your right I cant see why people with serious money say 312000 shares would sit in a stock which has fallen from $2.85 to $2.60 and dropped $78K in a week. Liquidity is rubbish as well if you wanted to move your 312000 shares you'd be pretty hard pressed average trading is 25 000 ish a day. (I know your not trading these quantities but its the principal and there are those who seemingly do!).---That is just too much risk.---in my view.




So Cynical.
I would have had 3 trades 2 wins and a loss.




Blue are buy points and Red sale points.
I didn't and haven't traded it.


----------



## skc (6 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> Why keep buying something on it's way down which hasn't been proven and doesn't look
> Like coming good for years?
> 
> It's just buy and hope?




Not saying Robusta will or will not be right, but somebody's got to buy it at some stage so the chart will turn and offer the technicals for you to trade.

Since no one trading technicals will buy base on the downtrending chart, whoever is buying must be doing so on fundamentals. All bottoms of trends are printed by FA. They are right some of the time.


----------



## tech/a (7 December 2012)

skc said:


> Not saying Robusta will or will not be right, but somebody's got to buy it at some stage so the chart will turn and offer the technicals for you to trade.
> 
> Since no one trading technicals will buy base on the downtrending chart, whoever is buying must be doing so on fundamentals. All bottoms of trends are printed by FA. They are right some of the time.




Mate of mine a Doctor said to me once.

I love hypochondriacs every now and then they get it right!

But for the hypochondriacs they are happy they are wrong 
its one in the bank---sweet victory---with the knowledge
that one day they may well be right!

Like the trader who sees price fall and declares--great I can buy more at a cheaper price!
Then when that occurs and price keeps falling----Great I can buy more at a cheaper price!



> Since no one trading technicals will buy base on the downtrending chart,




Thats not true.

Some charts display good low risk entries at bottom of channels like HHL now. (Among other analysis).
The difference with most well heeled techies is they will have a stop and or move a trade as quickly as possible to break even and wont ride it down or buy more
at another point. If the price goes against them.


----------



## notting (7 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> Some charts display good low risk entries at bottom of channels like HHL now..




That's where everyone should be happy!  Most rewarding.


----------



## GG999 (6 January 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> I entered HHL late last week @ 3.99 ~ my second entry, this time at a price significantly lower than last time....no big deal as the shares im holding from my first entry are 60% free carried anyway and the yield is still ok even with the reduced dividend.




This is something I haven't yet understood about share investing - the idea of 'free carry'. Why potential capital gains in different shares have different values to investors depending upon the original prices that they paid. 

Surely the 'free carried' shares are no less important to you than any of your other shares (?)


----------



## GG999 (6 January 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> tech i would be interested in your answers to a "what if" question.
> 
> Lets say you have access to a time machine and can go back up to 5 years in time twice to buy/sell HHL..what month and year would you choose to buy? also please nominate the month and year you would sell.
> 
> ...




I think the answer must be to buy at the lowest point - after the prices have been coming down for a long while - and then sell at the highest price possible. 

But I suspect that you won't get such a direct answer to the question from tech


----------



## tech/a (6 January 2013)

GG999 said:


> I think the answer must be to buy at the lowest point - after the prices have been coming down for a long while - and then sell at the highest price possible.
> 
> But I suspect that you won't get such a direct answer to the question from tech




Thought I'd answered this.
Are you looking. For specific buy and sell criteria which gave me the points of purchase and sale?

The current trade had very little risk and didn't involve buying at lower and lower prices.
Profit almost immediately.


----------



## GG999 (6 January 2013)

tech/a said:


> Thought I'd answered this.
> Are you looking. For specific buy and sell criteria which gave me the points of purchase and sale?
> 
> The current trade had very little risk and didn't involve buying at lower and lower prices.
> Profit almost immediately.




Sorry tech/a
I probably should have left it to the original questioner to follow up, but I don't think he was after any particular criteria - since you had the time machine, and you knew the history of the share price, he was expecting that like anyone else you would simply buy at the lowest price  - and once that was established he was going to follow up with a continued line of reasoning.

Anyway I was just curious as to how that discussion would develop, but since I didn't start it I probably should be leaving it to the original questioner and shouldn't add more


----------



## So_Cynical (6 January 2013)

GG999 said:


> I think the answer must be to buy at the lowest point - after the prices have been coming down for a long while - and then sell at the highest price possible.
> 
> But I suspect that you won't get such a direct answer to the question from tech






GG999 said:


> Sorry tech/a
> I probably should have left it to the original questioner to follow up, but I don't think he was after any particular criteria - since you had the time machine, and you knew the history of the share price, he was expecting that like anyone else you would simply buy at the lowest price  - and once that was established he was going to follow up with a continued line of reasoning.
> 
> Anyway I was just curious as to how that discussion would develop, but since I didn't start it I probably should be leaving it to the original questioner and shouldn't add more




You and i got the point of the time machine and tech didn't, and that speaks volumes about his mind set and where he is coming from when compared to you and i and where we are coming from....and that is what i was trying to demonstrate.

I never replied to tech because i considered his answer said everything i wanted to say...further participation from me wasn't needed.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 January 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> (3rd-March-2012) I entered HHL late last week @ 3.99 ~ my second entry, this time at a price significantly lower than last time....no big deal as the shares im holding from my first entry are 60% free carried anyway and the yield is still ok even with the reduced dividend.







GG999 said:


> This is something I haven't yet understood about share investing - the idea of 'free carry'. Why potential capital gains in different shares have different values to investors depending upon the original prices that they paid.
> 
> Surely the 'free carried' shares are no less important to you than any of your other shares (?)




The 'free carry' concept is one of the corner stones of my strategy, in my mind they are important because a profit taking trade was made to complete the 'free carry' component of the parcel in question...before 2012 this first parcel used to be the cheapest parcel held, thus establishing a core low price on which to help keep the average price low and ROC dividend yield high, when additional parcels/trades were added at higher prices.

In 2012 this didn't hold true with HHL and KSC so i bought shares at a lower price than my first 'free carry' completed parcel..thus establishing a new low price core to build from.


----------



## galumay (6 January 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> You and i got the point of the time machine and tech didn't, and that speaks volumes about his mind set and where he is coming from when compared to you and i and where we are coming from....and that is what i was trying to demonstrate.
> 
> I never replied to tech because i considered his answer said everything i wanted to say...further participation from me wasn't needed.




Yep, I got it too, thats why I decided early on the TA approach wasnt for me. As was pointed out though, thank god for the TA's and the emotional gamblers, without them it would be damn hard to find any value in the market!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 January 2013)

HHL looks like a bit of a dog on the four year monthly chart. 

It's still in a downtrend, lower lows and lower highs.

I'd steer clear of it.







gg

ps what is an ethical?


----------



## So_Cynical (6 January 2013)

galumay said:


> thank god for the TA's and the emotional gamblers, without them it would be damn hard to find any value in the market!




Yep i have come to the same conclusion...we need the 'stop loss' sellers and other capital conservatives.


----------



## robusta (7 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> HHL looks like a bit of a dog on the four year monthly chart.
> 
> It's still in a downtrend, lower lows and lower highs.
> 
> I'd steer clear of it.




I hope everyone else does for a while GG, I would like to buy some more.

The funds under management was still falling through until the end of the year however the investment returns (like the rest of the market) were positive.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

robusta said:


> I hope everyone else does for a while GG, I would like to buy some more.
> 
> The funds under management was still falling through until the end of the year however the investment returns (like the rest of the market) were positive.




Says HHL.

You make me larf.

The sum total of all information is in the chart.

It is a dawg.

gg


----------



## robusta (7 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Says HHL.
> 
> You make me larf.
> 
> ...




Time will tell, just as long as Mr Hall keeps his eye on the ball.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

robusta said:


> Time will tell, just as long as Mr Hall keeps his eye on the ball.




Just remember that the financials you are reading are probably 3 months old.

The market is today.

Ignore the charts at your peril.

I honestly hope you are correct in your fundamental analysis.

You will only find out the truth of today when the auditors deliver their reports in July/August.

And if you make a profit good on you.

I have seen many a Mr.Hall

gg


----------



## robusta (7 January 2013)

We are looking at the same thing with two different views of time. I'm thinkin things should look good in a couple of years plus.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2013)

robusta said:


> We are looking at the same thing with two different views of time. I'm thinkin things should look good in a couple of years plus.




I hope you are correct.

This new bloke sounds better.

But I've seen Skase, Williams, Adler and all the other big names deplete Australian's wealth.

And it was all apparent from the charts.

Lower lows and lower highs.

gg


----------



## GG999 (9 January 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> The 'free carry' concept is one of the corner stones of my strategy, in my mind they are important because a profit taking trade was made to complete the 'free carry' component of the parcel in question...before 2012 this first parcel used to be the cheapest parcel held, thus establishing a core low price on which to help keep the average price low and ROC dividend yield high, when additional parcels/trades were added at higher prices.
> 
> In 2012 this didn't hold true with HHL and KSC so i bought shares at a lower price than my first 'free carry' completed parcel..thus establishing a new low price core to build from.




Thanks So_Cynical

I guess I see things differently and I'm going to try to avoid using the concept of 'free carry'. In fact, I'm going to try to continue to make sell or (further) buy decisions that are not influenced by the price that I paid for a particular share in the past.

But it's an integral part of your successful investing so it is very useful for you - and perhaps useful for others - maybe it keeps moral up when share prices are coming down and helps people from selling at the wrong time, that sort of thing.


----------



## GG999 (9 January 2013)

tech/a said:


> View attachment 49850
> 
> 
> Blue are buy points and Red sale points.
> I didn't and haven't traded it.




That first 'buy' point is very impressive, tech/a - quite near the bottom

I could have been one of those idiots who might have been holding HHL through that big drop (although just to be clear - I've never held HHL) and actually looking to add to the position. So I would hope to buy at that bottom. Not having a time machine, my next best hope is technical analysis if it can reliably work as well as you show here.

I also noticed from that long TGA thread that there are people who prefer FA but like to combine with some technical analysis to help  choose entry/exit points.

Is this something that people like me should look into? Up until now I've been in the 'share price is pretty low at this point, and it won't worry me if it goes down for a while after I've bought" camp. But if I could fine-tune these points the returns would be better, even for a long-term investor.

Is there a particular thread that addresses this?
Have people asked any of the best technical analysts such as tech/a  to advise on entry points in the past, and if so has the advice generally been helpful?

If no previous threads - could we follow say 20 stocks and see if predicted entry points (maybe also sell points) turn out to be reasonably useful over say a year period?


----------



## tech/a (9 January 2013)

GG999 said:


> That first 'buy' point is very impressive, tech/a - quite near the bottom
> 
> I could have been one of those idiots who might have been holding HHL through that big drop (although just to be clear - I've never held HHL) and actually looking to add to the position. So I would hope to buy at that bottom. Not having a time machine, my next best hope is technical analysis if it can reliably work as well as you show here.
> 
> ...




All entries and all exits will be proven to be technically correct or they will fail.
The objective of technical analysis SHOULD BE to find these setups and trade them so you can take advantage of those which are proven correct and to limit exposure to those that are proven incorrect.

Its the way you handle trades and portfolios which will determine profitability more so than the accuracy of any analysis.

Let me pose this question.
Is an entry correct if price moves in your direction for 
1 period?
2 periods?
A week?
Perminently?

Money can be made in all timeframes!

I can have 20% winners and still Win 
Or 80% winners and still lose.
Cryptic---no not at---all have a think.

There are 100s of technical entry/exit possiblilities
All with the same possibility of being proven or not.
There is however a weight of evidence which can 
sway that possibility away from 50/50---again in n-timeframe.
That evidence may continue after the signal.

The trick is learning HOW TO TRADE. Fundamentally (Tools used) or technically.

Happy to be involved in any investigation you wish to set up.


----------



## GG999 (11 January 2013)

tech/a said:


> All entries and all exits will be proven to be technically correct or they will fail.
> The objective of technical analysis SHOULD BE to find these setups and trade them so you can take advantage of those which are proven correct and to limit exposure to those that are proven incorrect.
> 
> Its the way you handle trades and portfolios which will determine profitability more so than the accuracy of any analysis.
> ...




Ok fair enough tech/a       What I was thinking of was just one entry point followed by several years hold - in your system you might need multiple entry points followed by small losses but still have a good gain because of holding on for longer once share goes up. 

Probably beyond me to look into this further - a thread examining the best entry point wouldn't stay on the subject I suspect, ending up being more about success of TA, or another FA vs TA discussion.


----------



## GG999 (19 January 2013)

HHL has had a payout ratio higher than 100% for a few years now.
They seem to be paying dividends at least partly out of cash that they had accumulated in better years.

Do you see that as a positive - that the company is determined to look after its shareholders, wants to keep dividend payments fairly constant through the cycles, is confident that good times are around the corner and that cash reserves can be built up again

or should it be seen as a negative, that if sharemarkets don't recover in the near future to the point that HHL's services become popular again, dividends will be cut leading to many shareholders selling, leading to even further reductions in share price.

And a second question for somebody like me interested in buying HHL - when should I jump in - now?


----------



## So_Cynical (19 January 2013)

GG999 said:


> And a second question for somebody like me interested in buying HHL - when should I jump in - now?




HHL still looks cheap when compared to the other fund managers, AMP and PTM have had quite a run up over the last 3 months...bit of a MC difference though.


----------



## tech/a (30 January 2013)

Intermediate top.
With opportunity for a top up?







> when should I jump in - now?




Your question maybe answered on the chart soon.


----------



## robusta (20 June 2013)

Ouch, redemption notice received, 95 mil or about 8% of fum being pulled out.


----------



## craft (20 June 2013)

robusta said:


> Ouch, redemption notice received, 95 mil or about 8% of fum being pulled out.




Have you looked at the MER on their funds? Until they lower them or knock the ball out of the park on returns redemption pressure will remain.

I'm stalking but I think they will have to take a hit and lower the MER before things turn.


----------



## McLovin (20 June 2013)

craft said:


> Have you looked at the MER on their funds? Until they lower them or knock the ball out of the park on returns redemption pressure will remain.
> 
> I'm stalking but I think they will have to take a hit and lower the MER before things turn.




Peter Hall is a great fund manager and probably just going through a period of underperformance, there's nothing wrong with that, IMO. The problem is the level of competition in these boutique funds has increased exponentially since 2008.

There seems to be a new fund popping up every day. There's so many fund managers and they're all selling themselves as hedge funds with hedge fund style fees, the punters putting their money in with them are expecting instant results. Even worse, they take their fees based on pre-tax returns. The way some of them churn the portfolio, the after tax returns might be a third less and then they take their 2/20 fee. How someone completely untested like the Boat Fund can be charging 1.5/20.5 fee arrangement is beyond me. 

Sorry, that was my rant for the day.


----------



## robusta (20 June 2013)

craft said:


> Have you looked at the MER on their funds? Until they lower them or knock the ball out of the park on returns redemption pressure will remain.
> 
> I'm stalking but I think they will have to take a hit and lower the MER before things turn.




You are right, it is probably a bit of a chicken or the egg thing with the high MER. As a holder of HHL that high MER generates nice income but if the FUM continues to fall because of the high expenses...

The best result would be for some significant out performance from the funds, this seems unlikely in the short term.


----------



## skc (20 June 2013)

McLovin said:


> How someone completely untested like the Boat Fund can be charging 1.5/20.5 fee arrangement is beyond me.




Untested?! How can you say that? They've been posting on facebook for like, errrr, several months and made like, errrr, a few dozen calls with an account size of, errrrr, $100k.

Ok. I see where you are coming from.


----------



## McLovin (21 June 2013)

skc said:


> Untested?! How can you say that? They've been *ramping* on facebook for like, errrr, several months and made like, errrr, a few dozen calls with an account size of, errrrr, $100k.
> 
> Ok. I see where you are coming from.




Changed for you...


----------



## robusta (24 July 2013)

Thought it was strange that the share price rose a bit over 10% today but a article like this;

http://www.fool.com.au/2013/07/24/has-hunter-hall-international-lost-its-mojo/

Combined with low liquidity was enough to do the trick.


----------



## Ves (30 August 2013)

The notes in Peter Hall's annual review of operations that appear in the Chairman's end of year report is always an interesting read.

This year his section "Current State of the Investment Markets" provides food for thought for those who participate in the markets using a fundamental based approach.  His comments on how the Australian market sits in the investment landscape is a view point that I have not heard much.

It is a shame that I cannot copy/paste and quote the text, but a link will have to suffice. 

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20130829/pdf/42j08fgykcz460.pdf

Page 5.

For me it is always interesting to get inside the broader strategy of successful investors who share your general approach.


----------



## robusta (26 February 2014)

Half year report out today and not as bad as I thought.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20140226/pdf/42n02cwpw14n63.pdf

NPAT down 31.1%, revenue down 13.6% and operating expenses down 18.7% on the pcp. The outflow of funds seems to be slowing while FUM declined only 5.5% The sad thing to me is. "Positive investment performance of $168m to a great extent offset net outflows of $219m and the buy-back for Hunter Hall Global Value Limited (HHV) shares of $10m." 

So once again Mr & Mrs Joe Average have been pulling their money out right when positive returns are on the horizon. I hope they have found a profitable home for their investments.

The VGT, GVL and GDG are now back to record highs after The GFC. I wonder if the CIO will draw a normal salary now.

As for guidance;

"As at Friday 21 February 2014 funds under management were $1.053bn. Assuming that equity markets and 
the trend of fund flows stay at current levels we expect that Profit from Investment Management after Tax 
for the six month period ending 30 June 2014 will be marginally lower than the result for the six month 
period ending 31 December 2013."

One thing I am fairly confident of, equity markets will not stay at current levels and fund flows will be driven to a certain extent by investment performance.


----------



## Value Hunter (17 October 2014)

"renovations for the two funds were similar in that fund managers were appointed to oversee the portfolio construction of both funds, tighter risk limits were imposed in order to reduce the volatility of performance, and the stock selection process for both funds was improved in order to take greater account of both the risk and the upside of stocks in the portfolio. Furthermore, the benchmark for the AVT was changed from the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index to the Small Ordinaries Accumulation Index."

HUNTER HALL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ANNUAL REPORT 30 June 2013

To me I interpret that to mean "we have changed the way some of our funds run. To stop scared investors from withdrawing money from our funds we will now diversify ourselves into mediocrity for the sake of reducing volatility. Even though this will hurt our performance in the long run in the short run it will help stem fund outflows. Also we will no longer invest as much in high risk, high reward stocks for the same reasons and also because we need to micromanage our analysts because we don't fully trust them due to poor performance over the last few years".


----------



## robusta (7 January 2015)

Value Hunter said:


> "renovations for the two funds were similar in that fund managers were appointed to oversee the portfolio construction of both funds, tighter risk limits were imposed in order to reduce the volatility of performance, and the stock selection process for both funds was improved in order to take greater account of both the risk and the upside of stocks in the portfolio. Furthermore, the benchmark for the AVT was changed from the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index to the Small Ordinaries Accumulation Index."
> 
> HUNTER HALL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ANNUAL REPORT 30 June 2013
> 
> To me I interpret that to mean "we have changed the way some of our funds run. To stop scared investors from withdrawing money from our funds we will now diversify ourselves into mediocrity for the sake of reducing volatility. Even though this will hurt our performance in the long run in the short run it will help stem fund outflows. Also we will no longer invest as much in high risk, high reward stocks for the same reasons and also because we need to micromanage our analysts because we don't fully trust them due to poor performance over the last few years".




The market probably likes some more diversification in these funds.

They have seeded a new fund to be run by Peter Hall with $5 mil

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141212/pdf/42vfk3ym5phd2g.pdf

Early Dec FUM for this high conviction fund was $18.5 mil

As a long term holder I'm still a bit excited by total FUM for the group growing by $22.6 mil in the most recent quarter. Hopefully the tide is finally turning.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150107/pdf/42vwdbgp7f1b5k.pdf


----------



## robusta (28 May 2015)

Held HHL since Nov 2012 through declining FUM, share price and dividends.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150528/pdf/42yvj0171txrsr.pdf

Maybe the worm is turning.


----------



## robusta (28 July 2015)

Its been a long wait for me but the returns should start to flow.

http://www.finnewsnetwork.com.au/archives/finance_news_network110616.html

Love the 20+ year history of outperformance.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 December 2016)

SOL - Soul Pattinson buying HHL - Hunter Hall

Didn't see that coming, Peter hall has sold his 20% for $1 per share, and has committed to hand over the remaining 26% as part of the broader take over, im assuming these share will be sold at a more realistic take over price of around $3.50, but have no idea.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fund...h-sale-to-soul-pattinson-20161230-gtjx06.html

Anyway not a tax issue for me as my holding is currently in the red, would like some SOL shares in preference to all cash.


----------



## galumay (31 December 2016)

Its bizzare, the implication seems to be that SOL will offer at least $1 for the rest of the company - thats a big gap!


----------



## So_Cynical (31 December 2016)

galumay said:


> Its bizzare, the implication seems to be that SOL will offer at least $1 for the rest of the company - thats a big gap!




Thats the implication, but thats not going to fly ~ i expect at least $3.30 but hope for $3.50/60

Maybe the play is to take Peters 46% at $1 on a we will look after you deal, and then just buy 5% on market, thus gaining effective control, but then thats not a proper take over is it?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2016)

I must admit I do not understand what is going on with Hunter Hall and SOL.

gg


----------



## robusta (1 January 2017)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must admit I do not understand what is going on with Hunter Hall and SOL.
> 
> gg




Same here, I got out at $3.06 on Friday, way too much uncertainty.


----------



## craft (1 January 2017)

Peter Hall is certainly decisive.

He has quit and sold out in one foul swoop .


Personally I would have preferred him to stay; my investment (a touch over 50K shares brought a couple of years ago) was all about backing him. Key personnel risk has eventuated here and I don’t value HHL as high without him.


His actions on leaving seem reasonable to me.

Selling 19.9% to SOL for $1.00 per share has ensured that a major holder with investment credentials (similar to him) will effectively have control of appointing CIO. This is in the best interests of remaining minority holders in my view and I don’t have any issue with his pick. Millners are no Mugs. I think he has potentially taken a hit to his personal wealth to pass an ace to those who he thinks will do the best job for remaining shareholders and fund investors.


The price of the remaining ~24% is now unconditionally on the market with SOL in the box seat due to already obtaining 19.9% @ $1.00


Question is whether bidding even starts let alone goes high enough to see any more than just Peter Hall’s shares change hands. If it doesn’t than HHL effectively stays as it is with SOL/BKI/Contact Asset management (or other higher bidder) replacing Peter Hall with enough shareholding for influence.  We remain as minority holders riding coat tails.


Possibly the bidding goes high enough to entice minority holders to depart – especially if they don’t believe the new substantial holder adds the same value as Peter Hall did.


All very interesting. Time will tell all.


----------



## Ves (3 January 2017)

craft said:


> His actions on leaving seem reasonable to me.



It's all speculation and I assume no details of Peter's personal dealings with WSP will ever publically be released,  but there's plenty of explanations you could conjure up that are along the lines of him looking after himself and completely shafting current shareholders  (fortunately I'm not one of them).

I'm pretty sure the break-up value of HHL itself would be more than $1 per share.

Key personnel with concentrated interests in publically listed companies - there's a big grey area in what they should be doing in terms of the interests of all shareholders  and what is best for their personal wealth IMO.


----------



## Klogg (4 January 2017)

Ves said:


> I'm pretty sure the break-up value of HHL itself would be more than $1 per share.




Based on that alone, I can't conjure up a scenario where's he has screwed other shareholders.
If he was looking after himself, he'd be better off breaking up the company.

And if you go further and look at his previous actions (he's very charitable), hurting the shareholders just doesn't make sense.

The question for me is now - what will the takeover offer be? And is there a risk arbitrage opportunity here?


----------



## Ves (4 January 2017)

Klogg said:


> Based on that alone, I can't conjure up a scenario where's he has screwed other shareholders.



To a complete outsider it looks to me like he's sold 19.99% of the company at a massive discount to another company which has pretty much zero track record in the funds management business.

He has declared with his actions (ie. selling at below or near NTA) that the team at Hunter Hall have absolutely zero value without him.  Gee,  if ever there was a kick in the face,  there it is right there.  I cannot see how this would have a positive impact on company morale going forward no matter who steps up and buys it.


----------



## Klogg (4 January 2017)

Ves said:


> To a complete outsider it looks to me like he's sold 19.99% of the company at a massive discount to another company which has pretty much zero track record in the funds management business.
> 
> He has declared with his actions (ie. selling at below or near NTA) that the team at Hunter Hall have absolutely zero value without him.  Gee,  if ever there was a kick in the face,  there it is right there.  I cannot see how this would have a positive impact on company morale going forward no matter who steps up and buys it.




From what I've read, there was another bid for the shares at a higher price, but price was not the primary motivator in his decision to sell. 
As for the buyer - I don't know SOL very well, but from what I know of them they basically buy various assets and act very much like a long-term investor (although you're right, no specific funds management experience). They own TPM, API, RHL, BKI, NHC and many others.

There could be other reasons for his selling and the idea of finding a good home for the company just a front.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 January 2017)

My take on it is that he just snapped and wanted out and with that determination and more than enough personal FU money, he extracted himself from the business the fastest least damaging way he could, rolling the dice a little that someone else would come along and trump the SOL deal.

And if someone doesn't come along with a better offer, SOL get a bargain and he pockets another 5 million to add to the FU pile, SOL after all are great long term investors in other businesses, they will manage at arms length like they do with their other interests and they have a mountain of cash.

I know im not selling for a dollar and i doubt others will, still trading at around $2.50 anyway.


----------



## craft (5 January 2017)

Ves said:


> To a complete outsider it looks to me like he's sold 19.99% of the company at a massive discount to another company which has pretty much zero track record in the funds management business.
> 
> He has declared with his actions (ie. selling at below or near NTA) that the team at Hunter Hall have absolutely zero value without him.  Gee,  if ever there was a kick in the face,  there it is right there.  I cannot see how this would have a positive impact on company morale going forward no matter who steps up and buys it.





Hi Ves

Hope you are well.

Doesn’t happen that often, but I disagree with you on this one.

SOH have been running BKI ($1Billion LIC) for ages plus they are a conglomerate of long term investments.

Recently they externalized the BKI management relationship creating Contact Asset Management owned by Tom Millner, Will Culbert & SOH.


I suspect HHL will sit somewhere within a structure that has Contact overseeing investment management.  HHL can continue exactly as it is with SOL replacing Peter Hall as effective owner of the business, perhaps at some stage SOH may make a realistic bid for the rest of the company and integrate HHL employees and funds fully into Contact – but it’s not necessary for the survival of HHL and SOL tend to be happy owning controlling stakes in listed businesses.

Peter Hall leaving does impact other but he has the right to do so. Selling at $1.00 only improves the position of others as it avoids the possibility of HHL being liquidated.  If there was a run on funds because PH left and HHV traded at a material discount to NTA, liquidation would almost be a certainty without a major shareholder stepping into Peter’s shoes, and the $1.00 sale brought that shareholder into existence. It remains to be seen whether SOL gets the remaining 24% @ $1.00 – A part of the pricing on the initial 19.9% would be to give SOL the scope to bid up on the remaining 24% if they need to. They couldn’t privately buy the whole stake without going through a takeover bid. 

I doubt that SOL will make a bid high enough to attract Minority shareholders. HHL have previously tried to sell the business as a whole but the tenure of Peter Hall has been a stumbling block, perhaps but not highly probable we get a bid for the whole company during the process of pricing PH reaming 24%.  But if not Peter Hall is really just making a private transaction to see HHL remain as a going concern – Not sure if I worked at HHL I would see PH actions ensuring ongoing viability of the business as a kick in the face – probably the opposite.

If James McDonald and Jonathan Rabinovitz remain and SOH take effective stewardship of the business I’ll remain as a happy minority holder. The initial investment case was a small bet on PH – this development has the potential to be a much better funds management business.

I have a lot of respect for Peter Hall; I think he probably thinks very much as I do. But a good investor does not necessarily make a good fund manager and he’s probably struggled for a while.

Two snippets from a recent article explain fully to me why he’s gone.



> As a private investor, he can deploy his money without the risk constraints that institutional fund managers impose to avoid concentrated bets than can blow up clients' funds. "I will live by the sword, die by the sword".






> "It's nice to have money but what is the marginal utility of the next bit of money when you've already got a certain minimum level of security and comfort?"


----------



## Ves (5 January 2017)

Howdy craft

Thanks for the really detailed response,  much appreciated.

I think your line of thinking is very reasonable.  As you said this is a fairly unique situation and I feel lucky that I'm not involved at this point because it's tricky  (although could lead to a good opportunity).

I don't have a position in this one so I'm really just playing devil's advocate I hope you don't mind.



craft said:


> SOH have been running BKI ($1Billion LIC) for ages plus they are a conglomerate of long term investments.
> 
> Recently they externalized the BKI management relationship creating Contact Asset Management owned by Tom Millner, Will Culbert & SOH.



This is of course true.  But BKI is an Australian only LIC.  HHL's business has a decent portfolio of international based equities.

Perhaps this doesn't matter as much as I am assuming or there are people at BKI who have experience in this area and this is not immediately evident,  but it feels like they're going outside of their circle of competence a little.



> I suspect HHL will sit somewhere within a structure that has Contact overseeing investment management.  HHL can continue exactly as it is with SOL replacing Peter Hall as effective owner of the business, perhaps at some stage SOH may make a realistic bid for the rest of the company and integrate HHL employees and funds fully into Contact – but it’s not necessary for the survival of HHL and SOL tend to be happy owning controlling stakes in listed businesses.
> 
> Peter Hall leaving does impact other but he has the right to do so. Selling at $1.00 only improves the position of others as it avoids the possibility of HHL being liquidated.  If there was a run on funds because PH left and HHV traded at a material discount to NTA, liquidation would almost be a certainty without a major shareholder stepping into Peter’s shoes, and the $1.00 sale brought that shareholder into existence. It remains to be seen whether SOL gets the remaining 24% @ $1.00 – A part of the pricing on the initial 19.9% would be to give SOL the scope to bid up on the remaining 24% if they need to. They couldn’t privately buy the whole stake without going through a takeover bid.
> 
> ...



I guess where I am coming from with the 'kick in the face' comment is from my experience business transitions, no matter how well you do them,  rarely go smoothly.  With HHL there is also the added context of the time from the beginning of the GFC until now which doesn't look at all like it was smooth sailing.  I wouldn't suspect that it would take much for people in the organisation to get offended by Peter's actions (and they don't necessarily have to be interpreting them correctly in order to be offended or upset). That's just the nature of organisations that have been unstable.  In that respect,  I say this obviously as an outsider who knows very little.

Re the sale price at $1.00 and your comments re HHL operating with SOL just maintaining a controlling stake.  I agree this would be the best outcome and it allows shareholders to continue to have exposure to the future economic outcomes of the business.  Hopefully within a stable organisational environment.

I can honestly see upside in that if they can enact the right culture and allow the right people inside HHL to flourish.  There's a lot of talented people in Australia in that respect if you give them the right environment.

My big issue isn't this,  but it's the fact that by gifting WSP almost 20% at such a low price,  they're in a position where they can leverage this stake and potentially takeover the whole company at a price which I am sure some minority shareholders would see as under their NPV.  If the company is taken off the market in this fashion it also robs minority shareholders the chance to be exposed to the business in any shape or form.

I'm not sure if this was even possible,  but if he wanted to sell at $1,  isn't the best result finding a pro-rata way of offering this to all shareholders?

I guess at the end of the day it just feels like the elites/wealthy get opportunities that the small players can only dream of.



> I have a lot of respect for Peter Hall; I think he probably thinks very much as I do. But a good investor does not necessarily make a good fund manager and he’s probably struggled for a while.
> 
> Two snippets from a recent article explain fully to me why he’s gone.



Yes,  it certainly looks like he is disgruntled.  He probably wasn't suited to running such a venture within a publically listed structure as this inherently takes away some of his advantageous personality traits.

Maybe he should have known in the first place,  but there's been a hell of a lot of water under the bridge since then.  Unfortunately for all involved we are now at the end game,  and it had to come eventually.


----------



## McLovin (5 January 2017)

So_Cynical said:


> My take on it is that he just snapped and wanted out and with that determination and more than enough personal FU money, he extracted himself from the business the fastest least damaging way he could, rolling the dice a little that someone else would come along and trump the SOL deal.
> 
> And if someone doesn't come along with a better offer, SOL get a bargain and he pockets another 5 million to add to the FU pile, SOL after all are great long term investors in other businesses, they will manage at arms length like they do with their other interests and they have a mountain of cash.
> 
> I know im not selling for a dollar and i doubt others will, still trading at around $2.50 anyway.




This is what I think has happened. I would have real doubt that a boutique fm could survive without a cornerstone investor. By selling to SOL, PH has at least ensured the near term continuity of the HHL business.


----------



## skc (12 January 2017)

A piece from the AFR that I found quite amusing.



> One fund manager who read the bidder's statement published by WHSP said it reminded him of the unsolicited takeover offers launched many years ago by David Tweed.
> ...
> WHSP says that the reason someone may wish to accept the Hunter Hall offer is because it is a simple cash offer, it provides access to liquidity, it involves certain payment for the shares, it will remove the risks and uncertainties of continued investment in Hunter Hall, it is the only takeover offer available, not accepting the offer may leave shareholders exposed to a number of risks and shareholders will not pay brokerage by accepting the offer.
> 
> ...




These reasons are unbelievably $hithouse... if I make an offer of 10c for each TLS share, I can quote the same reasons as well to make it a compelling offer?

Can't the directors just say f-off? Why does a company need to spend all these money responding to non-sense takeovers with target statements and what not?


----------



## McLovin (12 January 2017)

skc said:


> A piece from the AFR that I found quite amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Aren't SOL just going through the process? They had to make a takeover offer to get the rest of Hall's shares and I guess they had to come up with something to put in the "why is this good" box.

The corps law has a whole section devoted to takeovers. I'm sure within lies the answer to why the directors can't say f off.


----------



## craft (12 January 2017)

McLovin said:


> Aren't SOL just going through the process? They had to make a takeover offer to get the rest of Hall's shares and I guess they had to come up with something to put in the "why is this good" box.
> 
> The corps law has a whole section devoted to takeovers. I'm sure within lies the answer to why the directors can't say f off.




That's my understanding also. Seems like they are doing it efficiently enough - hopefully they are also keeping the expenses as low as possible. If another bidder doesn't emerge this is effectively just large a private transaction taking place following due process for a public company.


----------



## McLovin (12 January 2017)

craft said:


> That's my understanding also. Seems like they are doing it efficiently enough - hopefully they are also keeping the expenses as low as possible. If another bidder doesn't emerge this is effectively just large a private transaction taking place following due process for a public company.




Yer. I'm a little perplexed with why Tony Boyd is so p!ssed about this (he seems to be having a daily rant in Chanticleer about it). I can't really see how shareholders are being jibbed, unless they participate in the takeover. I think a cornerstone investor is critical to this business or becomes rudderless.

It's a private transaction between two parties. Because of the way the law is it necessitates a ridiculous takeover process. I doubt anything like this was ever considered when the law was being drafted.


----------



## So_Cynical (12 January 2017)

I bought a few the other day, just a small trade with the IB account, @ 2.38

Now what sort of contrarian would i be if i didn't buy that?


----------



## Value Hunter (18 January 2017)

If you look at the Hunter Hall high conviction trust (HCT) the returns have been phenomenal (albeit with a limited track record). That is what Peter Hall was capable of when left to invest in a flexible and concentrated manner. I think the problem with Hunter Hall (I suspect anyway) was that the board tied Peter Hall's hands and forced most of the funds to become more diversified over time, which led to a decline in the performance numbers which then led to redemptions, loss of employee talent, etc.


----------



## Value Hunter (18 January 2017)

Value Hunter said:


> "renovations for the two funds were similar in that fund managers were appointed to oversee the portfolio construction of both funds, tighter risk limits were imposed in order to reduce the volatility of performance, and the stock selection process for both funds was improved in order to take greater account of both the risk and the upside of stocks in the portfolio. Furthermore, the benchmark for the AVT was changed from the All Ordinaries Accumulation Index to the Small Ordinaries Accumulation Index.
> 
> HUNTER HALL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ANNUAL REPORT 30 June 2013
> 
> To me I interpret that to mean "we have changed the way some of our funds run. To stop scared investors from withdrawing money from our funds we will now diversify ourselves into mediocrity for the sake of reducing volatility. Even though this will hurt our performance in the long run in the short run it will help stem fund outflows. Also we will no longer invest as much in high risk, high reward stocks for the same reasons and also because we need to micromanage our analysts because we don't fully trust them due to poor performance over the last few years".




This was a post I made in 2014. I believe what was written in the 2013 annual report coupled with subtle comments by Peter Hall in recent interviews perhaps indicate he was pressured (perhaps by the board and or other shareholders or even fund consultants) over time to have more diversified portfolios. I believe this (coupled with their high fee structure and increasing competition) ultimately led to a decline in performance followed by a decline in funds under management and loss of key employee talent. I think if anything most of the funds will become even more diversified and conventional after Peter leaves leading to even worse performance. I therefore think contrasrians should be careful with this one.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 January 2017)

McLovin said:


> I can't really see how shareholders are being jibbed, unless they participate in the takeover.




The only reason I can see why anyone would participate is if they have no idea as to the actual value of their shares and simply assume that the takeover offer represents a good price.

I personally see that as a scam. Sending someone an offer to buy their shares at roughly a 60% discount to market value. Only those with a lack of knowledge are going to fall for it but personally I despise anything which seeks to take such blatant advantage of others.

Whilst most with shares will have some knowledge, there's always the chance that someone inherited some shares, has no idea about what to do next, sees the takeover offer and thinks that must be a reasonable deal so accepts it. Things like that.


----------



## McLovin (1 February 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> The only reason I can see why anyone would participate is if they have no idea as to the actual value of their shares and simply assume that the takeover offer represents a good price.
> 
> I personally see that as a scam. Sending someone an offer to buy their shares at roughly a 60% discount to market value. Only those with a lack of knowledge are going to fall for it but personally I despise anything which seeks to take such blatant advantage of others.
> 
> Whilst most with shares will have some knowledge, there's always the chance that someone inherited some shares, has no idea about what to do next, sees the takeover offer and thinks that must be a reasonable deal so accepts it. Things like that.




It's the formal takeover process. It's the Corps Act that forces them to go through this process. Don't forget the board of HHL also sends out letters saying "do not accept". It's not the same as those scammers who send out low ball offers to pensioners.


----------



## craft (1 June 2017)

Shareholders vote in favour of merger with Pengana Capital.

Pretty good conclusion to the Peter Hall departure episode in my view. I think its now a better funds management business -certainly bigger and more diverse.

Pillemer (CEO) and SOL have some serious skin in the new entity.

Maybe finally some positive funds flow leverage will come into play. Still a somewhat risky play on the viability/profitability of active investment management.


----------



## craft (1 June 2017)

Marking the end of an era. The entire history of HHL since floating.

Chart






Cash Flow


----------



## System (6 June 2017)

On June 6th, 2017, Hunter Hall International Limited (HHL) changed its name and ASX code to Pengana Capital Group Limited (PCG).


----------



## Dona Ferentes (31 August 2021)

It seems I have "inherited" some Pengana Capital (PCG) shares, through being an indolent sloth, or is that a patient long term investor, and holding my PE1 shares since inception. <as to whether that is a good idea is for another day>


> PIML, the holding company, looked to distribute Alignment Shares to PE1 unitholders approximately *two years *after the PE1 listing. On such distribution, the Alignment Shares convert into ordinary shares in Pengana (PCG)





> Eligible PE1 Unitholders will receive an _in specie _distribution of one PCG Share for every 48.9 PE1 units held by them at the Record Date.



now, I tend not to have much engagement with these sorts of things. I suppose I'm meant to, but I prefer to own something that aligns with my interests. 
_Pengana Capital Group Limited (PCG) is involved in funds management and with the objective of increasing investor wealth by developing, offering and managing investment funds in Australia and globally as opportunities arise. _       ...      https://pengana.com/


----------



## Dona Ferentes (14 September 2021)

The Board of Pengana Capital Group Limited (ASX: PCG) wishes to advise that, commencing immediately, it intends from time to time to make on market purchases of units in the Pengana Private Equity Trust (ASX: PE1).

PCG considers the Units to be a particularly attractive investment, reflecting the Board’s confidence in the prospects for strong returns in PE1’s underlying portfolio. 

_- a bit incestuous, _


----------



## Dona Ferentes (13 December 2021)

Dona Ferentes said:


> The Board of Pengana Capital Group Limited (ASX: PCG) wishes to advise that, commencing immediately, it intends from time to time to make on market purchases of units in the Pengana Private Equity Trust (ASX: PE1).
> 
> PCG considers the Units to be a particularly attractive investment, reflecting the Board’s confidence in the prospects for strong returns in PE1’s underlying portfolio.



And I think PCG withdrew that as PE1 appears to be doing well , of late .

As per of the "loyalty bonus" to get the Private Equity LIC up and running from its float, participants were promised shares from the mothership if thet hung around. I received 511 shares in PCG earlier in the year. These just have found a new home, and after brokerage, I've banked this early Xmas present.


----------



## divs4ever (13 December 2021)

i still wish they were HHL ( and Peter Hall  being the  persistent talking point )

 ( sigh )

 oh well that was a big lesson in key personnel risk


----------

