View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/article/a744458
Trust Insider: why do trust accounts say so much while saying little?
by James Carthew on Apr 08, 2014 at 00:01
GLI Finance , the fund that I am on the board of, has just published its annual report and accounts.
The whole thing is 75 pages long and, as chair of the audit committee, I’m responsible for making sure these are not only accurate but if, taken as a whole, they are fair, balanced and understandable and provide the information necessary for our shareholders to assess the company’s performance, business model and strategy.
The rules about the content of the accounts are fairly prescriptive and half the job is making sure we have not left anything out, but every year I get more worried about the need to make our accounts “understandable”.
We add in as much explanation as we can but, presented with 75 pages of data, does anyone actually read it? Next year the accounts might look different again: there are more accounting standards for us to adopt.
I got Alliance Trust's accounts through the door the other day, these were 120 pages long. There are a few more pictures and graphics in there but there is also a lot more content - some daft little extra bits like the greenhouse gas emissions breakdown that I’ve moaned about before but mostly just pages and pages of extra information about every little aspect of the business.
The couple of pages of chair’s statement that used to give shareholders most of the information they needed in a concise way are now scattered across the first few dozen pages of the report. Is this a good thing?
All this increased verbiage is not much help for investors. Some funds are undoubtedly complicated and there are good reasons why they can’t disclose everything we might like then too.
For example, I read Juridica’s results the other day. This investment company, which funds people’s legal claims and takes a cut of any damages awarded, is not allowed to tell us the names of the cases it is funding. It doesn’t tell us either what they think each is worth – that might prejudice the outcome of a damages claim.
Shareholders might like more detailed information but it’s probably not practical for Juridica to provide it. One thing I would say about the announcement though, it looked at first glance as though the fund was doing well.
Then I realised the net asset value was falling and that most of that fall was because it was distributing capital as its operating expenses absorbed a large chunk of its profits (mostly unrealised gains on its investments). The operating expenses are high as the fund operates a 2 and 20 fee structure – 2% base fee and 20% performance fee over an 8% hurdle – and the non-executive directors cost a fortune – circa $350,000 (£210,000) for the chair and $150,000 each for the other two.
News sponsored by:
As the UK coalition government strives to rebalance the national economy, so called 'reshoring' looks set to play an increasingly important role in economic recovery.
Today's top headlines
The Citywire guide to investment trusts
Investment trusts have proved to be a highly effective way to invest in the market. Citywire has interviewed the experts to find out more.
With talk on interest rates on the horizon, our latest roundtable debate covers income investing against a changing backdrop
More about this:
Look up the funds
Look up the investment trusts
- Alliance Trust (Ordinary Share)
- Juridica Investments (Ordinary Share)
- Duet Real Estate Finance (Ordinary Share)
- GLI Finance (Ordinary Share)
On the road
J.P. Morgan Elect on investment growth, income and cash. More information on J.P. Morgan investment trusts.