Tags
Andreas Rialas, ARGO, Argo Group, Kyriakos Rialas, Michael Kloter, Rule 9 Waiver, share buyback, shareholder activism, shareholder value, The Argo Fund
Here’s the recent RNS from Argo Group (ARGO:LN), notifying shareholders of a March-3rd EGM seeking authorisation for a £2 Million Share Buyback & Rule 9 Waiver. [Here’s the actual EGM Circular]:
– Argo Group’s AUM has now declined by a cumulative 85% (to $166 million), the $3.5 million Argo Local Markets Fund remains its only new fund-raising (since the credit crisis), it continues to write-off virtually all the management fees accrued & owed (now totaling $6.2 million) by the Argo Real Estate Opportunities Fund, and it’s also tied up a majority of shareholder funds in illiquid loan & fund investments. Management’s obvious inability to stabilise & increase AUM, plus its wilful neglect of shareholder value, are clearly to blame here for the 50% collapse in Argo’s share price just in the last 3 years.
– Judging by local press reports (for example, here & here), Andreas Rialas originally received a substantially higher offer for Argo’s Indonesian refinery investment (TPPI), but ended up spending another couple of years negotiating (or refusing to negotiate) with Pertamina…to ultimately realise a far lower exit price for fund/shareholders. [Which is consistent with a near-25% write-down (in the last interims) of Argo’s stake in The Argo Fund].
– Pursuant to this letter, in 2014/2015 I introduced and/or referred to Andreas Rialas a number of trade & financial buyers who were interested in potentially acquiring Argo Group, its asset management business, or its fund investments. Since then, I’ve had no meaningful feedback or reason to believe he/Argo have seriously engaged with any of these potential buyers.
– The EGM Notice process was both unprofessional & inappropriate: While most investors learned of the Share Buyback from Argo’s RNS (released after close-of-business on Mon, Feb-8th), the Notice was actually posted the prior week & received by some shareholders on Sat, Feb-6th.
– The Indonesian sale & proposed return of capital is Argo’s first major value-creation event in a number of years. Some level of (prior) consultation with a representative group of external shareholders, plus some additional time to adequately consider & discuss the proposal, would have been appropriate.
– Kenneth Watterson is a director since Argo’s original 2008 Admission. As is David Fisher, who’s also been an AREOF director since 2010. While Michael Kloter has a much longer history with Andreas & Kyriakos Rialas, Absolute Capital Management (which acquired Argo back in early 2007), not to mention Florian Homm (also, see here & here)…and received a post-Admission bonus, while billing Argo for legal services over the years. In aggregate, these directors have earned an estimated $1.4 million in total remuneration from Argo. I must say, I struggle to understand how they still qualify as Independent Directors..?!
– [NB: I have included Michael Kloter on all major correspondence…like any shareholder, I’d expect shareholder value to be his top priority as Chairman. Therefore, it seems like an extraordinary dereliction of his responsibilities not to acknowledge (let alone respond to) an activist who represents a significant percentage of Argo’s shareholder base, even after I publicly announced my search for potential buyers. Considering the collapse in Argo’s business & share price, I’m sure shareholders would expect him (at least) to initiate a strategic review to properly evaluate the company’s future in terms of its operating & capital allocation strategy.]
– Noting again local press reports on the Indonesian sale, plus the fact TPPI appears to represent a majority of TAF’s net assets, it seems reasonable to expect the ultimate net cash proceeds to Argo Group (from the payment of $5.8 million in outstanding management fees, and what could be a potentially substantial TAF redemption) would permit a much larger return of capital.
– Except management has provided NO updated financial info, which leaves shareholders (i.e. the company’s owners!) in the dark regarding Argo’s (post-Indonesian sale) cash/financial position…and clearly ill-equipped to properly evaluate this EGM proposal, let alone determine whether they might hold or sell their shares (if/when a buyback is launched).
– Noting Argo’s current £6 million market cap, and its limited trading volume & float, the successful completion of a £2 million Share Buyback in the market seems both impractical & unlikely. And the resulting reduction in float is equally unlikely to help in ‘creating liquidity in the stock market’. More importantly, the approval of the Rule 9 Waiver (which is inextricably linked to the buyback) would permit Andreas & Kyriakos Rialas to gain absolute majority control (of up to 89%) of Argo Group, with no obligation to pay a premium, launch a bid, or even put up a single penny of their own personal funds.
– A compulsory share tender offer/redemption (ideally at a premium, and for a potentially larger amount) would obviously be a much fairer & far more sensible alternative for returning capital to shareholders. And paying a dividend, as management has promised repeatedly in the last few years, is an additional means of returning cash. [NB: Both offer certainty for shareholders, whereas a share buyback comes with no assurance of execution, let alone completion].
Not surprisingly, I polled a selection of Argo’s shareholders in the past week:
In summary, I can report the Proposals (despite a £2 million lure) are generally viewed as a cynical & coercive attempt by management to minimise its return of capital, to offer a likely zero-premium exit to frustrated shareholders, and to substantially increase their control of Argo (for no money down). If so, this is yet another disappointment from a board that’s enjoyed an estimated $13.4 million in directors’ fees since Admission…while Argo’s external shareholders are forced to be content with a mere $5.4 million stake in the company.
And if this share buyback actually goes ahead, at best departing shareholders can perhaps hope for some additional liquidity to facilitate their exit, while remaining shareholders can probably look forward to life in a highly illiquid company that’s now completely dominated by management, and that still exhibits no sign of an operational turn-around.
By my last count, I speak for well over 19% of the company’s outstanding shares – which amounts to nearly a third of Argo’s external shareholder base, and approx. 50 separate shareholdings, including (for example) David Barry of Value Investments Ltd. who recently declared a 3.0% stake. On behalf of each of them (& myself):
– I urge & recommend all ARGO shareholders to vote AGAINST this EGM resolution. I also urge you to share this post & recommendation with other Argo shareholders you may know (online, or offline) & other interested parties.
[NB: The EGM’s at 3pm Thursday, March-3rd (in the Isle of Man), while the Proxy Form deadline is 3pm Tuesday, March-1st. For most shareholders, holding share certs or attending the EGM isn’t necessarily practical, so I urge you to contact your broker AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (noting they may impose an earlier deadline) to request/confirm they can vote on your behalf.]
– And if you haven’t done so already, I also urge you to please email me at wexboymail@yahoo.com to confirm support for my activist campaign (& please include your exact Argo shareholding). Again, I ask you to forward this request to other Argo shareholders you may know.
And remember, it requires a simple majority of Independent Shareholders to defeat this Resolution…Andreas & Kyriakos Rialas will NOT be voting their shares. Therefore, the votes of all external shareholders (large & small) will be crucially important here. [And by email today, just to really get the ball rolling, I’ll be reminding all shareholders I speak for (that’s 31%+ of the external shareholder base!) to vote AGAINST this resolution]. At the very least, this vote should deliver a loud & clear rebuke which management would do well to heed…but I think we have every right to believe we’ll see this EGM resolution decisively rejected with your vote.
And presuming that, please rest assured we’ll be continuing to actively seek a fairer (& hopefully larger) return of capital, and/or dividend, from Argo…
Pingback: H1-2016 Wexboy Portfolio Performance | Wexboy
Hi Wexboy
My shares are in a nominated account with TD Direct. Can I vote I have got no notification of a vote. I probably left it too late to vote.
Regards
Donal
Donal – see below.
Another awesome $ARGO:LN story I received this week:
An Argo shareholder was so damn sure he wanted his AGAINST vote to count…he actually drove 150 KILOMETRES to ensure he had physical proof of ownership as quickly as possible from his broker when submitting his vote!
And since he’s Scandinavian, I like to fondly think he lives in the far far North, and there was a reindeer sleigh, plenty of 8 foot snow drifts & some overnight bivouacing involved… And in this instance, perhaps most inspiring of all is the relatively small size of his shareholding – which is a great reminder every vote does count, and it really goes to show how important the principle is here.
OK, I can’t resist any longer…c’mon people, ROCK THE (AGAINST) VOTE!!!
Cheers,
Wexboy
I know some ARGO shareholders have been given the cold shoulder by their brokers when it came to submitting their EGM vote…so I thought I’d share this email I sent to a shareholder (who’s American, but I think it’s still relevant for all concerned) who was frustrated with his unresponsive broker:
‘Dear XXX,
Not surprising – like most companies/institutions, UK co’s prefer to avoid the US regulatory nightmare, so they usually state proposals (even takeovers!) aren’t relevant/applicable/available in the US (e.g. see front page of EGM circular). But that’s just boiler-plate language – obviously, you can exercise your rights just like any other shareholder. I’d suggest:
– Share the circular & proxy form with your broker, and ask them to vote accordingly (voting deadline’s March-1st) for you – presuming they deal with other UK co’s/shares, they should be familiar with Capita Asset Services & already have contacts and a voting process in place.
Click to access Circular-Regarding-Proposed-2016-Buyback.pdf
Click to access Proxy-Form.pdf
– Failing that, complete the proxy & send* to Capita (presuming it will arrive by March-1st). They don’t mention it, but prob a good idea to include proof of ownership (account statement?) – or ask your broker what nominee name your shares are held in & Capita can presumably identify them from the share register. *Annoyingly, they only provide their address – you could contact them to see if you can send electronically.
http://www.capitaassetservices.com/contact-us.cshtml
Voting definitely seems to have gotten harder & harder…a conspiracy, I suspect, between companies & brokers who can’t be bothered with this whole shareholder democracy idea!
Regards,
Wexboy’
And lo & behold, I was delighted to receive back an email tonight thanking me for the advice, and confirming he had followed up with his broker again & has now successfully voted his shares (via his broker) AGAINST the EGM resolution. In terms of this specific vote, and shareholders’ rights in general, this email really made my day…and I hope it inspires you to chase up your broker one more time & demand the service you (& all those fees you pay) richly deserve!
Vote AGAINST!
Hi Wex 🙂 in dec 2012 you wrote a letter for the ARGO management suggesting different share holder friendly activities, of which one was a share buy back. Now they are finally planning to do some of that. Are you really sure that their motives are purely sinister, or could they actually be trying to enhance share holder value here?
a £2million share buy back at a best (/worst?) case Price of 9p per share, would lead to 22.2 mil shares, i.e. 1/3 of the share base. Would that bring the “Rialas brotherhood” (more) in control of the Company? I see they own 36% of the shares, so they would only get up to around 50% even after the share buy back (wouldn’t they,k or how do you get 89%?). Furthermore I would suspect that if they try to make such large a buyback, the share price would appriciate significantly leading to a smaller share count reduction, and a quite acceptable exit price for most of the sellers. And I mean nobody is forcing anyone to sell, so I cant see how a share buy back can be unfair to the shareholders who choose to sell below intrinsic value… :o.
I sure hope the Rilases don’t take the share buy back proposal rejection the wrong way and decide that it must mean that share holders are not interested in getting Money out anyway and decide not to persue other means of returning our money. Because if the choice is beteween a share buy back or nothing at all, I would strongly prefer the share buy back…
Hi Casper,
Yes,ideally I could envisage a buyback that provides liquidity & takes advantage of share price volatility, preferably as a secondary strategy to a tender offer. But there’s been a lot of water under the bridge since that letter*, and a £2 million share buyback for a company with a £6 million market cap & limited float/trading volume seems like an ‘impractical & unlikely’ proposition.
[* https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ARGO.L#symbol=ARGO.L;range=5y
Note the substantial price rally in the wake of my Nov & Dec-2012 letters to management – which was actually in the middle of the European/Cypriot debt crisis! In fact, it’s perhaps fair to say I’ve done more for the Argo share price in the past few years than management…which I find a bit ridiculous!]
At 5p per share, the Rialas brothers would be at 89.0% post-buyback, while at 9p per share, they’d still reach 54.0% post-buyback. And I agree: Considering the specific circumstances here, if they seriously pursued a buyback, they could potentially drive the share price sky-high…which means it would never be completed, unless management proposes to buy at such an inflated share price they actually destroy shareholder value. I don’t see that scenario happening…at best I think this buyback will simply be a ‘take it or leave it’ exit proposition for investors – and other shareholder clearly agree, hence the lack of reaction in the actual share price.
And yes, it’s entirely natural for any shareholder to think a share buyback might be better than nothing…but in this case, it’s NOT! Just look at the actual EGM resolution – it’s carefully designed to prompt exactly that conclusion…i.e. you don’t get a £2 million buyback UNLESS you vote for a Rule 9 Waiver (which would allow management to gain absolute majority control without a bid or a premium, let alone putting up any of their own money). And such a binary proposition/ultimatum is clearly unacceptable to the majority of shareholders, hence the support & the AGAINST votes that keep stacking up – especially when management hasn’t even deigned to provide shareholders with any updated cash/financial info to accompany the proposal.
In the end, an AGAINST vote is a rejection of this no bid/no premium takeover of the company…it doesn’t change the fact that shareholders deserve & should/will continue to push for a fairer & more sensible return of capital (ideally at a premium & for a larger amount).
Regards,
Wexboy
Pingback: Vote AGAINST the Argo Group Share Buyback Proposal | Alpha Vulture